Gang Up with ranged weapons?

[Volaran]

I notice that the thread is now noted as 'Answered in the FAQ' instead of just marked as a candidate. Hopefully that means we should get an answer soon.

[Brogue The Rogue]

So according to some of the statements in here . . . if you only need to be threatening to sneak attack as a rogue, you could sneak attack with a bow (shooting it, of course) if you and an ally are on opposite sides of the target, your ally is threatening the target, and you are threatening the target via a gauntlet, unarmed strike, or boot-blade, or something similar? And this is even without the feat?

[Happler]

I too am curious as to which way RAI goes on this.

[Zurai]

Brogue The Rogue wrote:

So according to some of the statements in here . . . if you only need to be threatening to sneak attack as a rogue, you could sneak attack with a bow (shooting it, of course) if you and an ally are on opposite sides of the target, your ally is threatening the target, and you are threatening the target via a gauntlet, unarmed strike, or boot-blade, or something similar? And this is even without the feat?

No. Without the feat, you can only flank with a melee weapon. It doesn't matter if you're threatening the target (such as with a gauntlet or whatever else) if you're attacking with a ranged weapon.

[Brogue The Rogue]

Zurai wrote:

Brogue The Rogue wrote:

So according to some of the statements in here . . . if you only need to be threatening to sneak attack as a rogue, you could sneak attack with a bow (shooting it, of course) if you and an ally are on opposite sides of the target, your ally is threatening the target, and you are threatening the target via a gauntlet, unarmed strike, or boot-blade, or something similar? And this is even without the feat?

No. Without the feat, you can only flank with a melee weapon. It doesn't matter if you're threatening the target (such as with a gauntlet or whatever else) if you're attacking with a ranged weapon.

It seems to me that many people were insinuating that "flanking" is a condition you gain by fulfilling the qualities of flanking as stated in the rules. That is, two opponents (one of which must be you) on opposite sides of a target and both threatening it, and that that can be dissociated entirely with the flanking bonus to attack rolls. Am I incorrect in reading their statements in such a manner? Because they way a lot of people were phrasing their arguments definitely lead me to that conclusion, and thereby to the conclusion that, by their reasoning, one could sneak attack on a ranged attack as long as you're flanking.

On a side note, is it even feasible to do this while wearing a gauntlet?

[Charlie Bell]

Jason Bulmahn, on the APG FAQ, wrote:

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)

[Happler]

Charlie Bell wrote:

Jason Bulmahn, on the APG FAQ, wrote:

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)

I am having a brain fault, can you please link me to that?

[Ravingdork]

Happler wrote:

Charlie Bell wrote:

Jason Bulmahn, on the APG FAQ, wrote:

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)

I am having a brain fault, can you please link me to that?

Yeah, where is this mythical APG FAQ? Have they set up the forum FAQ already?

[Sniggevert]

It's a new tab under the product page...here

I guess it was a very quiet roll out.

[Happler]

Sniggevert wrote:

It's a new tab under the product page...here

I guess it was a very quiet roll out.

Danka! Not sure how I missed that!

[Volaran]

Sniggevert wrote:

It's a new tab under the product page...here

I guess it was a very quiet roll out.

Thank you for linking us, Sniggevert, and thank you for posting that Charlie.

[InsaneFox]

Ranged attacks do not threaten squares.

Even if you were in proper melee flanking position with a ranged weapon, you would not get a flanking bonus.

Your position has nothing to do with this. A feat that allows you to flank from any position will not help you flank with a ranged weapon.

I don't even see how there's a conflict about this.

[Snoring Rock]

Well its settled, I was "spouting" a reasonable interpretation of the accurate intent of the "melee" feat. Cool.

[The Killer Nacho]

Yup, I saw this ruling several days ago. Gang Up kinda sucks now. The ruling says "your allies", so you need two other people adjacent to get the bonus. Which means you can probably flank very easily anyway.

What a waste of a feat.

[Varthanna]

I'm... baffled O_O

[Quote the Raven]

Playing a rogue myself I love this feat. I only get one shot each round as a ranged sneak attack. Even with several extra d6's sneak attack dmg I'm not doing anywhere near what my fighter/ranger/barbarian buddies are doing with all of their Cleave's and Whirlwinds etc. I play with peeps that have done massive dmg to multiple targets per round my extra 20-30 from afar is "just" the nail in the coffin. I love the gang up feat cause it lets me be a sniper. Good times.

I'm a little new here, which post had the "ruling" on this issue. I don't see it, must be too near sighted :D

[SlimGauge]

Hexcaliber wrote:

Really? You need a definition for Ally?

Actually, I kinda do.

Situation: Party on the road comes over a small ridge (a hummock, really) to a crossroads where a confrontation is taking place between a black-robed wizard and his bodyguards and a group of "monks" (who the party, with good perception rolls, recognizes as not monks at all, but a race of lizardmen/draconian things we've had run-ins with before).

A 3 way battle ensues. The bard begins an inspire courage performance, with the intent of including the black-robed wizard's bodyguard in "allies" (since they're at least initially fighting the draconian thingies. Does the bard designate, or does the opinion of the bodyguards matter (do they consider themselves allies or not) ?

A couple rounds in, the black-robed wizard drops a fire-ball that gets draconians as well as our party. It's clear that the draconians are done for but the fighting will continue between us and the wizard's bodyguard.
Can the bard now deny the effects of inspire courage to the bodyguards ? Does she have to stop her existing performance and start another to do it ?

(EDIT: apologies for the thread derail)

[Cheapy]

Ruling that Gang Up is one of those "doesn't make sense" situations.

Also, flanking bonus is strictly and explicitly melee attacks only.

Gang Up DOES NOT allow a rogue or anyone else with sneak attack to get ranged sneak attack at all.

[Brogue The Rogue]

Holy resurrections, Batman!

Looking back, Zurai never answered my questions from two years ago. xD

Sorry, SlimGauge, there's no written definition for the term "ally" in Pathfinder. We can quibble and squabble all we'd like over the theoretical physics of hypothetical magic and how it should work and how we think it should work . . . but sadly, there's no RAW-backed answer forthcoming, as far as I know. That one's up to your GM.

[Winterwalker]

*WW casts Lesser Animate Dead on the thread.* It's only been a few months, not years like QoR pulled off. :)

I was looking for this very answer, stumbled on the thread and read each post, my view changed no less than 3 times, back and forth with each side presenting new compelling evidence. I wasn't sure if there would be a final resolution, but I kept reading, then I get to page 2, Wah wah wah wah! No dice. What I had originally thought (melee only) was confirmed.

What a cool read though! I was almost ready to pitch that Rouges could indeed get their SA damage, due to flanking at range, if 2 other allies were flanking an npc.

[Cheapy]

There is a final resolution. Flanking attacks are melee only, so a ranged weapon won't gain flanking anyways.

Regarding whether you counted as your own ally for this ability, one of the main developers said no.

[Keldarris]

I have to disagree with some of you on this feat...

The feat states the person is 'considered' to be flanking, not that they 'are' flanking a target.

To be flanking the following two conditions have to be met: A) Two allies are on opposite sides of the target and B) Both are threatening with melee weapons. But the person with this feat does not have to be one of those two allies (if they were required to be, why take the feat in the first place?). A person with a bow, crossbow or firearm in melee combat with a target is not considered threatening that target for purposes of flanking and any bonuss or situation that can arise from flanking a target.

The holder of this feat is considered to be flanking, as if they themselves were in the circumstances for A & B above. But, they are not themselves, actually flanking the target with a melee weapon. That is the power, this feat allows (i.e. Cleave allows one to make one additional attack that another person without Cleave could not make if they had the same circumstances in their favor). In fact, the feat states neither the holder of this feat must be in melee combat with the target, nor, have a melee weapon and threatening said target. They are 'considered' to be flanking....IF....two of their allies are THREATENING the target (they dont have to be flanking the target themselves at current for this feat holder to be considered flanking either).

Further, the feat doesnt state the holder of said feat has to be 1) In melee, 2) Holding a melee weapon, 3) Threatening the target, or 4) Adjacent to the target. "Regardless of your actual positioning" does mean, in any legal location, including grappling the target itself! Nowhere does it state one can not use a ranged weapon with the feat to be considered flanking if two of their allies are currently threatening said target.

This would be the 'Lawful Neutral' defination of the feat. It may have been intended by the book's author to imply melee, but that is not the case with how its written. One would have to rewrite this feat to directly state this is for holder's of the feat to be threatening the target themselves with melee weapon(s). The fact that the author of the book stated his thoughts in August of 2010, the feat was not changed in the errata for the book, published 12/1/10 (that's 4 months later).

[Happler]

Lets look at the definition of flanking from the PRD:

Quote:

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.

This give you the following:

• Attack type: "When making a melee attack"
  
• positional: "opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner"
  

and now the feat in question:

Quote:

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.

The feat only changes the requirement for position and says nothing about the requirement for melee attack. It specifies "regardless of your actual positioning." and not "regardless of your actual positioning or attack type."

[Chaospyke]

I don't understand why people are having problems with this. Read each rule separately!

Gang Up (Combat)
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.

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.

- This means that only melee characters get the +2 flanking bonus. Other ranged characters can still flank the enemy, they just don't get the +2 melee bonus

Sneak Attack:
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. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

- According to all 3 of these rules: If 2 of my allies are threatening an opponent, and I have the feats Gang Up and Precise Shot, and I attack the same opponent from within 30', then I get my sneak attack bonus. I don't get the +2 Melee flanking bonus though, but I still get sneak attack, because I am flanking

[Funky Badger]

Chaospyke wrote:

I don't understand why people are having problems with this. Read each rule separately!

Gang Up (Combat)
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.

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.

- This means that only melee characters get the +2 flanking bonus. Other ranged characters can still flank the enemy, they just don't get the +2 melee bonus

Sneak Attack:
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. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

- According to all 3 of these rules: If 2 of my allies are threatening an opponent, and I have the feats Gang Up and Precise Shot, and I attack the same opponent from within 30', then I get my sneak attack bonus. I don't get the +2 Melee flanking bonus though, but I still get sneak attack, because I am flanking

Or read the linked clarification, which is actually quite clear.

General rule of thumb - if there are two (or more) ways of interpreting a rule, the least powerful one is the official one...

[Slamy Mcbiteo]

Flanking from the PRD

"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."

Melee attack...not ranged. It seems Flanking only applies to melee attacks. Even if you are considered flanking the bonus does not apply to ranged attacks.

[Dekendo]

I do apologize for the thread necromancy, but it seems strange to me that it wasn't brought up that this allows a character to gain the flanking bonus even when there is a single line of combat going on, and not force someone to be "flanking" well within enemy territory. I have been on both sides of this as player and GM. As a player there are many times where this feat has been useful, even excluding the unintended interpretation of the ranged attacks.

Example of useful situation: rogue and fighter standing side by side in a 10 foot hallway and a character with reach poking over the rogue's head; in our situation this was a sorceress with a whip. In this situation it would have left me (the rogue) very exposed to enemy attacks if I had tried to flank normally and not used Gang Up. However, using Gang up, I was able to gain the extra damage from sneak attack from the comfort and relative safety of standing next to my fighter ally and not in an awful position.

That being said, I have in the past allowed a rogue to use this feat with range, specifically thrown weapons in this case but mostly because it added to game play for our table, NOT because it is in any way how the feat should be interpreted. It also allowed the character to feel moderately useful when compared to the party's Barbarian and Paladin, who still managed to dish out more pain than the rogue in a single round.