|
That's not true, though. Like I said before, specific trumps general. There's two general rules you're confusing here
No, you apparently missed my point about logic.
The written word is always interpreted. It is literally impossible to 'follow RAW without any interpretation'. You are interpreting that 'melee weapons' in the flanking writeup was meant to be an independent limitation rather than the actual limitation being 'threat' and melee being the only things which provided threat at that time. You are interpreting that the flanking text about 'melee weapons' should trump the Gang Up text about gaining flanking regardless of position.
Interpretation always comes into it. Which is why I look for a logical basis for rules. If rules don't have a logical foundation then they are just arbitrary and there is no way for a GM to judge the exceptions which inevitably arise.
Let's take your whip example. It doesn't really work since whips can't be used to make AoO and do not threaten the areas they can attack into. The whip rules don't say whether they receive flanking bonuses. I'd say no, but since they are melee weapons your interpretation of RAW would seemingly indicate they do. The text;
"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."
Whips make melee attacks. Ergo, if you have a whip and someone on the opposite side of an enemy threatens them you get flanking bonuses... but the person on the other side doesn't because your whip doesn't threaten. 'RAW'.
So from this we can see that the melee attacker does not have to threaten to get flanking... only the person opposite them must. And yet...
"Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent."
If we stick with the prior view then this must mean that creatures with 0' reach can't contribute to flanking for someone else, BUT they can receive flanking bonuses themselves if someone opposite them threatens the same target. A sprite with a sword is "making a melee attack" and thus gets flanking if their "opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner". 'RAW'.
Of course, this also means that a ranged attacker who threatens a square can allow a melee attacker who does NOT to get flanking bonuses.
I always thought of flanking as 'threat from opposite sides', but I admit 'threat from one side' holds up fairly well. It just creates a weird dichotomy where threat is required to provide, but not receive, flanking bonuses.
TL:DR
From a mechanics perspective.. a melee character is always "armed" and can swing their weapon to distract someone in melee (thus allowing for a flank)
A character with a bow does not 1) always have an arrow knocked when off turn and 2) is not posing a threat by swinging your bow around at your target unless you plan to beat them with it (which I'd rule would have a chance to break the bow unless specifically designed to be used as a melee weapon).
CBDunkerson, your whole argument seems to stem from the Gang Up feat, and your applications of logic to that. I posit that you are reading too much into that feat, and here is my reasoning.
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.
Emphasis mine, but I'll get to that in a moment.
A feat, often, takes one situation in the game, and changes the rules slightly. It's well-known, as I've said, that specific trumps general. If there is a general rule, it remains in effect until something specifically trumps it. That alone should be enough for my side of the argument, but you seem to need more than that. Whatever.
Let's take another look at the "Flanking" entry in the PRD.
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.
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.
I suppose if someone were to ask, "What is flanking?" they would really only need to look at the very first paragraph (which is only one sentence)- the rest of is is clarifying positioning.
So, 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. In case you haven't noticed, positioning is a BIG deal- hence why there's four times as much text explaining it than the text saying it in the first place.
Then, a feat comes out that changes how positioning needs to be. You no longer need to be on opposite sides- you can have twoallies standing on the same side of the opponent, and still gain the flanking bonus. To me, that seems like the entire point of the feat, and is well worth a feat (not having to tactically position yourself opens up plenty of opportunity to remain safe while still gaining flanking during busy battles).
And yet you infer from this that it lets you flank with a ranged weapon? Nothing, at all, has changed the statement that you have to be making a melee attack in order to flank. If the developers wanted ranged weapons to flank, wouldn't it been easy enough to say in Gang Up, "regardless of your actual positioning or type of attack"? Or maybe in the "Normal" line, write, "Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent, and you can only flank with a melee attack."? But look back at my bolded text in the Gang Up description- in case it wasn't clear enough by the fact that ranged attacks are not addressed in the feat, the "Normal" line states that the ONLY rule that the feat is trumping is positioning. That's all.
Nonetheless, you seem to have it set in your mind how the rules work, so go ahead and play your own game the way you want. But until you can bring up some rules to back up your claims, you're house-ruling your game.
honestly if u want a lethal archer, then i would go pure fighter. if u need a trapfinder...take 1 level of rogue. the only way that sneak attack works reliably in range is if u can geet invisible and if u have the goggles in the APG that alow SA at any range. If u want a more rougish/stealthy/acrobatic then try the zen archer archetype for monks.
While the wording on flanking specifically calls out making a melee attack, it's unclear what the RAI are there. I would rule that it was written as such in order to not have to reproduce the rules for threatening (which generally require you to be using a melee weapon), and in order to exclude possible bonuses with spellcasting (maybe). In any case, it seems ridiculous to me that you could change ranged weapons via a feat to allow you to threaten an area, and provide flanking to others, but then not be able to gain those bonuses yourself.
What is flanking supposed to represent? The ability to land attacks on a defender whose attention is divided between two or more threatening opponents, right? The rules <i>could</i> have been written to give flanked opponents a -2 AC to represent the same thing, but then you're giving characters not threatening them the same bonus, which would defeat the intended mechanic to some degree. The defender is turning to face one threatening opponent or another, and exposing some weakness in their defense in doing so.
Picking up Snap Shot would seem to fit the intent of the flanking mechanic; you're exceptionally adept at firing off quick shots to take advantage of openings in an opponent's defense. The fact that the flanking rules were written long before Snap Shot came out makes it difficult to simply point to RAW and say Snap Shot archers cannot benefit from flanking themselves.
The fact that the flanking rules were written long before Snap Shot came out makes it difficult to simply point to RAW and say Snap Shot archers cannot benefit from flanking themselves.
I don't think this is a compelling argument at all. Yes, the flanking rules were written before Snap Shot, but guess what- Snap Shot was written after the flanking rules. (I know, I know, I'm Captain Obvious here.) That means that if they wanted to allow flanking via Snap Shot, they could have very easily specified so. But they didn't. It's often difficult to determine RAI, but it's very easy to determine RAW- because the rules are, after all, written.
Like I said, you can house rule it if you want. But the rules are written. If you can cite a rule giving precedence for allowing a change to a general rule without a specific rule trumping it, then go for it- but the Rules As Written are still the Rules As Written.
The fact that the flanking rules were written long before Snap Shot came out makes it difficult to simply point to RAW and say Snap Shot archers cannot benefit from flanking themselves.I don't think this is a compelling argument at all. Yes, the flanking rules were written before Snap Shot, but guess what- Snap Shot was written after the flanking rules. (I know, I know, I'm Captain Obvious here.) That means that if they wanted to allow flanking via Snap Shot, they could have very easily specified so. But they didn't. It's often difficult to determine RAI, but it's very easy to determine RAW- because the rules are, after all, written.
Like I said, you can house rule it if you want. But the rules are written. If you can cite a rule giving precedence for allowing a change to a general rule without a specific rule trumping it, then go for it- but the Rules As Written are still the Rules As Written.
Not saying this is necessarily the case, but it's possible the writers didn't feel the need to call out flanking with Snap Shot by assuming that threatening a space and flanking go together. Honestly, it makes little sense to separate them.
Not saying this is necessarily the case, but it's possible the writers didn't feel the need to call out flanking with Snap Shot by assuming that threatening a space and flanking go together. Honestly, it makes little sense to separate them.
I know that there's no way we can know for sure, but the makers of Pathfinder know that many of the people who play their game are rules-lawyers, and they try their best not to release ambiguous rules (hence the fact that the FAQ even exists). But that's why the specific trumps general exists. If there's a general rule, it's true unless a specific rule trumps it. As I've said, a specific rule has yet to trump the general rule that you flank "when making a melee attack".
Once again, I know there's no way we can know the RAI. But until something changes it, or until we get a word from the devs, the rule is melee only.
Gang-up says you are considered flanking, so the flanking rules don´t have to be met actually. Therefore i say it´s ok with a ranged attack too.
Gang-up has a FAQ that states it does not apply to ranged attacks. However, it is my belief that is because gang up does not overcome the 'threatening while ranged' question. Snap shot in my opinion does.
Of course, that does mean I am in the camp that believes that the game designers indicated melee weapons because they didnt expect (probably never had the first thought about it) to make a feat that allows a ranged attacker to threaten.
In my mind flanking is all about the threat and the fact that 99.99% of the time it is with a melee weapon is incidental. If you can threaten with a ranged weapon that qualifies you to flank and gain flanking bonuses. In my games I will house rule this but it would be great to see a FAQ on this.
- Gauss
Of course, that does mean I am in the camp that believes that the game designers indicated melee weapons because they didnt expect (probably never had the first thought about it) to make a feat that allows a ranged attacker to threaten.
But once they DID make a feat that allowed a ranged weapon to threaten, don't you think that would have been a great time to say that ranged weapons can flank? There's a whole lot of assuming going on- specifically, assuming the writers don't know their own rules and/or don't take rules into account.
UltimaGabe: How many times do they need to add or delete language in thier FAQs? The game creators are human and as such there are oversights but I am quite happy with Paizo (as opposed to WotC) because they do respond in a timely fashion most of the time.
In EITHER case (yes or no on flanking with snap shot), I am not alone in believing that the key element of flanking is 'threatening' and not 'melee'. But I also recognize that RAW states BOTH hence the request for a FAQ and my houseruling it in my games.
- Gauss
|
Snap Shot (Combat)
With a ranged weapon, you can take advantage of any opening in your opponent’s defenses.
Prerequisite: Dex 13, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack of opportunity.
Normal: While wielding a ranged weapon, you threaten no squares and can make no attacks of opportunity with that weapon.
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
You have to be with in 5 feet of them. Snap Shot dose let you threaten with a bow. So with Gang Up it dose not matter as long as two other allies are threating them. You wold get sneak attack damage. Because you meet the requirements for flank from the two feet's. That is allot of feet's to do it. And you still have to be right next to them.
Feet's Needed to do this :
Int 13
Combat Expertise
Gang Up
Point Blank Shot
Rapid Shot
Weapon Focus
Dex 13 BAB +6
Snap Shot
So it takes 6 feet's to do this. So a level 9 Rogue who used all but one feet just for this. Can do it not really a problem for me. As any rogue going for range combat it is still not that good. And will be out damaged by a two weapon fighting rogue in melee combat. All that this feet set really changes is there not chaining weapons for melee combat.
You wold get sneak attack damage. Because you meet the requirements for flank from the two feet's.
Unfortunately, you still don't meet the requirements for flank from the actual flanking definition.
(And I try not to pick on people for spelling/grammar... but come on, it's feats, not feets.)
Unless you have the snap shot feats.
|
|
Hey guys just wanted to point out this feat
Ranged Flank (Combat)
Even at a distance, you can take advantage of a distracted opponent.
Prerequisite: Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, base attack bonus +10.
Benefit: When attacking with ranged or thrown weapons from a distance of up to 30 feet, if the nearest adjacent space to your target is unoccupied and the opposite space is occupied by a threatening ally, you are considered flanking. Both you and your ally gain all the benefits of flanking, including +2 flanking bonus on attacks, rogues can sneak attack, etc.
Normal: Only characters in melee are considered flanking.
It basically says you are not flanking without it.
Note that it is a 3pp feat. Not all GMs will allow it.
Unless you have the snap shot feats.
With Snap Shot, you threaten, which means you can give the flanking bonus to an ally. However, since you are not making a melee attack, you do not benefit from the flanking bonus (and cannot deal sneak attack damage this way).
Honestly, my GM allows flanking (in all meanings of the word) with ranged weapons for the sake of some fairness compared to melee weapons and I swear that it is BROKEN. Next level, I will take Sniper Goggles for my archer and the GM should rue the day he created this houserule.
You can not be threatening the enemy, and get a flanking bonus as long as you are positioned properly. Flanking is essentially a -2 circumstance bonus to AC for trying to defend on two sides at once.
So when a person who does not threaten a square attacks from the opposite side (attack on side one) of a person who threatens (potential attack on side two) his attention is split.
However, when a person who threatens a square attacks (attack on side one) attacks opposite from someone who does not threaten a square (no potential attack on side two), he would not get a flanking bonus, because the attention does not need to be split.
If a ranged attacked is shooting from across the field, he is not in the proper position to get a flanking bonus, because the up-close pressure is not there to distract the target.
From this, I feel like a rogue should be able to get a sneak attack whenever he would get a flanking bonus, because the attention is distracted, and so he can close in for the kill.
The only question is the definition of melee attack, and the issue is does it mean an attack with a melee weapon, or an attack from melee range. I feel like it is the latter. To consider it another way, there is a penalty for "firing into melee". If my team had surrounded the enemy with non-threatening units (ranged touch attacks, bows etc.), would I be able to fire at that enemy without the penalty for firing into melee? If I have to take the penalty for firing into melee in that situation, I feel like the people on my team are engaged in melee fighting, whether or not they are making "melee-type" attacks.
"Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other."
So, if no one threatens each other (both enemy and friendly) then they are not in melee.
If the enemy threatens your non-threatening units, it is still considered to be "in melee."
|
|
The only question is the definition of melee attack, and the issue is does it mean an attack with a melee weapon, or an attack from melee range. I feel like it is the latter.
A melee attack is made with a melee weapon.
An attack with a ranged weapon is always a ranged attack, no matter how close the target is.
To consider it another way, there is a penalty for "firing into melee". If my team had surrounded the enemy with non-threatening units (ranged touch attacks, bows etc.), would I be able to fire at that enemy without the penalty for firing into melee? If I have to take the penalty for firing into melee in that situation, I feel like the people on my team are engaged in melee fighting, whether or not they are making "melee-type" attacks.
Actually, you will take the firing into melee penalty because the target can make melee attacks against your friends (and vice-versa). After all, even if all were using ranged weapons (including the target), one of them could decide to punch his opponent (melee attack).
EDIT : By Tarantula's quote, enemy archers adjacent to each other would not count as being engaged in melee
"Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other."
So, if no one threatens each other (both enemy and friendly) then they are not in melee.
If the enemy threatens your non-threatening units, it is still considered to be "in melee."
I think that ends the argument.
But I'm surprised it's this complicated. I haven't played a rogue in years, but doesn't it say in rogue abilities that you sneak attack withing 30ft?
Yes, you can deliver a ranged sneak attack when within 30'. (More with sniper goggles). That doesn't mean you do it through flanking.
If the enemy is denied their dex to ac e.g.(you are acting before them in first round of combat, or invisibility) then you can still deal sneak attack damage. There are other ways to deny dex to ac as well, and any of them will work for qualifying for sneak attack damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The flanking condition comes from been threatened, not from hit with a melee weapon. Melee weapons get +2 to hit when flanking, but the condition to flank is someone threaten the other side. Ranged weapons with snap shot flanks too, but without the +2 bonus given to melee weapons.
Flanking still requires a melee attack, so even if you threaten with a ranged option, you can't ranged flank. I'm not aware of any ability that gets around this, although one came out recently that got close.
Flanking still requires a melee attack, so even if you threaten with a ranged option, you can't ranged flank. I'm not aware of any ability that gets around this, although one came out recently that got close.
I don´t see where says that a melee attack is required. the first sentence say that you get +2 to hit with a melee attack only.
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 part implies melee attacks only can flank. That is the standard ruling. It is impossible to flank with ranged attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The flanking condition comes from been threatened, not from hit with a melee weapon. Melee weapons get +2 to hit when flanking, but the condition to flank is someone threaten the other side. Ranged weapons with snap shot flanks too, but without the +2 bonus given to melee weapons.
I think Leonardo has got it right here. If you are a rogue with sneak attack, your ability to get sneak attack damage in this situation only depends on whether the opponent is capable of being sneak attacked at all and whether it is threatened by an opponent on its other side. If this rogue has a bow, he won't provide flanking to his partner because he won't threaten this opponent (absent the Snap Shot feat) and he won't get the +2 flanking bonus regardless because he isn't using a melee weapon. But the flanked condition does not have to be associated with a flanking bonus and is not automatically something both PCs on opposite sides of an enemy creature will automatically be able to take advantage of. Usually, both PCs will flank. Sometimes only one will. And that's okay.
[Incidentally, this is all complicated considerably in situations in which the opponent at least at first does not KNOW it is threatened by an enemy behind it. This situation comes up sometimes with invisibility, stealth, mind controlled allies, and simple betrayal. By RAW, I'm not sure it matters. But if something is flatfooted vs. an enemy because it is unaware of its presence, I'd guess it shouldn't count as threatened until that enemy has actually made its first attack.]
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 part implies melee attacks only can flank. That is the standard ruling. It is impossible to flank with ranged attacks.
"when making a melee attack.." You flank? No. You what? "you get a +2 flanking bonus"
What is the condition to the target be flanked? threat opposite squares.
Melee attack is not the condition to flank.
|
|
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.
This is important for reach weapons. Dose not help one bit with range weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the condition to the target be flanked? threat opposite squares.
Melee attack is not the condition to flank.
We may already be on the same page, but the way you worded that makes it sound as if a flanked creature must be threatened on two sides. That isn't the case.
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.
If a creature has PCs A and B on two opposing sides, by RAW it will be flanked by both of them but only if at least one threatens will any flanking bonuses be available. However, IF only one of them (let's say PC A) does in fact threaten it, then it does not receive said bonus. It is PC B, who most often in such a situation won't be able to properly take advantage of the fact, who would get the +2 flanking bonus. PC B (assuming we're not talking about someone with Point Blank Mastery or Snap Shot here) may not be able to do much without a melee weapon or Improved Unarmed Strike, but if he made an unarmed strike anyway (thus provoking an AoO, but the creature might be down to its last few hit points or is casting a spell he wants to disrupt or he's just reckless) he'd still get the +2 flanking bonus for making a melee attack, EVEN THOUGH he is providing no such bonus to PC A. If PC B has PBM, but not Snap Shot, he can make a flanking attack (without a bonus, because it's not a melee attack), but doesn't threaten and so still doesn't allow PC A to make flanking attacks with a bonus. Only if PC B has Snap Shot does he threaten the enemy and thus allow PC A to flank with a bonus, although even then PC B won't get a flanking bonus to hit out of PC A's threatening status because the rules explicitly state flanking bonuses to hit are for melee attacks only. They don't say PC's who flank as a result of the position of other PCs can't get the other benefits of the flanked condition.
Now, it would be possible to infer that rule and many GMs do. But then you are getting into RAI territory. And RAW or RAI, there is no real reason a character with Snap Shot or PBM couldn't get off a sneak attack under these circumstances.
Seems to me that all you need to flank with Bow is Snap Shot. You only need to threaten to count as flanking. You don't get the +2 to hit with bow as that only applies specifically to melee attacks. So with snap shot you threat and therefore are flanking.
CRB: "Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus."
Now this seems to point out the you can count as flanking but do not get the flanking bonus.
Relevant FAQ
Gang Up: Does this feat (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)
Flanking is melee only
Also, relevant thread
Relevant FAQ
Gang Up: Does this feat (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)
Flanking is melee only
Also, relevant thread
that was before the Snap Shot feat.
that was before the Snap Shot feat.Relevant FAQ
Gang Up: Does this feat (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)
Flanking is melee only
Also, relevant thread
No, it wasn't. The second to last post mentions Snap Shot.
With Snap Shot you can provide flanking to someone else. You will never receive flanking and never be able to sneak attack thusly.
The FAQ is before the Snap Shot, other threads doesn´t count at all.
Relevant FAQ
Gang Up: Does this feat (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)
Flanking is melee only
Also, relevant thread
The thread above is interesting, but doesn't contain any official rulings (that I saw).
The FAQ link does indeed appear relevant, but it is probably also relevant to point out that Point Blank Master came out in the APG, which was published August 24, 2010. The Snap Shot feat came out in Ultimate Combat, a 2011 book. JMB's comment was from August 13, 2010. At that time, I don't know whether or not this point had been discussed internally within the Paizo development team, but the relevant two abilities weren't available to the vast majority of players to even raise the question.
The other thread doesn't count because you don't like that the answer is no?
If Snap Shot allowed for the user to count as flanking you make all other forms of ranged combat worthless by comparison. I assure you the intention of Snap Shot was not to allow this.
The other thread doesn't count because you don't like that the answer is no?
If Snap Shot allowed for the user to count as flanking you make all other forms of ranged combat worthless by comparison. I assure you the intention of Snap Shot was not to allow this.
I have no characters with PBM or Snap Shot nor any immediate plans to make such a character. I found the first thread interesting, but it did not contain any official rulings or definitive examples of RAW on the subject that I could see, which is what the OP was asking about.
As for Snap Shot allowing for the user to count as flanking and thus making all other forms of ranged combat "useless by comparison", well...
If characters with Snap Shot don't get a flanking bonus (and that is not what is being argued in this thread), then all they WOULD get is the ability to threaten and give others flanking status (is anyone here arguing that Snap Shot would not work for this?) and the ability to make sneak attacks if they happen to be rogues. From 5' away. Just like a melee rogue. It's true, Improved Snap Shot would increase that distance to 15', if someone puts in the bucketload of feats required to get that far. However, the BAB requirement alone would mean such a rogue was a minimum of 12th level. I dont see this feat-starved build overpowering other ranged attack builds, builds designed to do maximum damage at every range EXCEPT immediate proximity, and which get far more attacks, arrows, and bonuses per round. Additionally, rogues are not as generally survivable in close combat as more martial classes, so this super-archer rogue would have to contend with that as well.
I have little to add but
Ranged threat. BAD! On a whole new level. I had a player talk me into taking this feat. It had a bunch of requirements that every good archer will already have, and the end results were disgusting. Not only was he doing great damage with his bow during his turn, he had combat reflexes and had more attacks of opportunity than his normal attacks. Before 5th, he had two shots on his turn, but five when the bad guys did anything but 5ft. step. This only got worse as he gained levels.
And then he wanted a quiver of unending arrows. That I said no to, because the combination would remove every penalty of using a ranged weapon; his ammo supply was the only thing that approached keeping him from running away with the game. Unless you GM is cool with you having a melee weapon with a reach of 30ft, just deal with the idea you don't threaten.
Other that that...I love archers. Good luck!
Not to downplay Gator's concern, but it is somewhat tangential to the question. He doesn't like Snap Shot, and listed his reasons why. But until they remove or nerf it, there is no question that Snap Shot already does things he doesn't like. The question is whether or not it does more.
Personally, I'm absolutely fine if the developers make it crystal clear that you can only flank with melee attacks and touch-range spells. Or if they adopt the old 3.5 Manyshot ruling that stated that sneak attack damage only applies to a single ranged attack per round. Or any one of several other imaginable rulings. But I've seen this question come up several times before and if the only thing anyone can point to is a FAQ answer to a completely separate question that came out before it was even possible to threaten at range or attack with a ranged weapon without provoking AoOs, the question will CONTINUE to come up until they do make a definitive ruling that clarifies matters.
Out of curiosity, does anyone else see any similarity to the Whip/Flanking question here? Would anyone rule any differently as to whether a whip-wielder (whips don't threaten) could get flanking bonuses from a sword-wielder on the other side of the enemy?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/3rd-party-feats/4-winds-fantasy-gaming/combat -feats/ranged-flank-combat
This makes it clearer.
"Normal: Only characters in melee are considered flanking."
(Apologies if it's already been mentioned)