| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gang Up (Combat)
<p>You are adept at using greater numbers against foes.</p>
<p>Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.</p>
<p>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. </p>
Do you count as your own ally?
You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."—Sean K Reynolds, 10/12/10
Logically, if you have Gang Up, are threatening an opponent, and one additional ally is threatening opponent, does that add up to the two you need for Gang Up to function since you are your own ally?
This seems fair to me, but I may be biased because I consider Combat Expertise to be a largely useless punishment feat required by several other feats I actually like.
Gang Up (Combat)
<p>You are adept at using greater numbers against foes.</p>
<p>Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.</p>
<p>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. </p>
Do you count as your own ally?
You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."—Sean K Reynolds, 10/12/10
Logically, if you have Gang Up, are threatening an opponent, and one additional ally is threatening opponent, does that add up to the two you need for Gang Up to function since you are your own ally?
This seems fair to me, but I may be biased because I consider Combat Expertise to be a largely useless punishment feat required by several other feats I actually like.
Technically, I think you're right based on the FAQ, AND I agree with you that its probably fair based on the prerequisites.
Sadly, I think the intent is almost certainly that you need a third person.
The feat was written before the FAQ, so I'd say the feat should probably be errated to '...if the target is threatened by at least two allies other than yourself...'.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Oh snap, nice catch Dire Mongoose.
Hm... I think I have to agree with what's being said here: the wording of Gang Up makes it quite clear (from a "how the English language works" standpoint) that you need (or are supposed to need) a third buddy, yet that from a strict RAW standpoint, you count as your own ally and therefore only need one flanking buddy.
Draw enough attention, and maybe this will get eratta or a contrary ruling?
Do you count as your own ally?
You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."—Sean K Reynolds, 10/12/10
I'd say that exception would qualify in this case, at least, in my opinion.
I'd say that exception would qualify in this case, at least, in my opinion.
Do you count as your own ally?
You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."—Sean K Reynolds, 10/12/10
My feeling is, the extra case that makes it less clear cut is: Gang Up giving you Flanking when you have two non-you allies threatening an opponent that you yourself do not threaten.
It seems pretty clear to me that, RAW, works, so that being the case being able to count yourself doesn't seem that crazy.
I'd say that exception would qualify in this case, at least, in my opinion.
Do you count as your own ally?
You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."—Sean K Reynolds, 10/12/10
My feeling is, the extra case that makes it less clear cut is: Gang Up giving you Flanking when you have two non-you allies threatening an opponent that you yourself do not threaten.
It seems pretty clear to me that, RAW, works, so that being the case being able to count yourself doesn't seem that crazy.
The feat states that two of your ally's threatening an enemy gives you flanking.
This means that if there are two of your buddies threatening someone, you can drop your sneak-attack damage with a bow.
If none of the three of you are actually all the way across from the enemy, you are able to get a flank.
you are suggesting that with Gang-Up, it only requires you and one ally to be threatening an enemy from ANY position to get a flank?
that does not seem to be the intent of the feat, and giving you a flank when you are the third man, and the other two have flanking or even when they don't have the flank and are just threatening is enough for a feat.
What are you asking about non-allies giving a flank when you are not threatening?
This means that if there are two of your buddies threatening someone, you can drop your sneak-attack damage with a bow.
No, because flanking is a condition that (per Core book / PRD) explicitly applies to melee attacks.
However, consider something like the Lunge feat. That gives you extra reach for the purposes of taking your melee attacks, but you don't threaten in the extra reach. Two allies threatening the victim would be sufficient for you to be considered flanking that case.
you are suggesting that with Gang-Up, it only requires you and one ally to be threatening an enemy from ANY position to get a flank?
That's what I'm saying the strict interpretation of the rules appears to say.
that does not seem to be the intent of the feat, and giving you a flank when you are the third man, and the other two have flanking or even when they don't have the flank and are just threatening is enough for a feat.
I think it's enough for a feat; I don't think it's enough for two feats, which it mostly is because, in my opinion, Combat Expertise was terrible in 3.X and it's even more terrible in Pathfinder. (It's one of very few changes I don't like.) In most cases, anyone using CE should strongly consider withdrawing instead, and that's without getting into needing a high INT on a character who probably wants about four other stats higher.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think it's enough for a feat; I don't think it's enough for two feats, which it mostly is because, in my opinion, Combat Expertise was terrible in 3.X and it's even more terrible in Pathfinder. (It's one of very few changes I don't like.) In most cases, anyone using CE should strongly consider withdrawing instead, and that's without getting into needing a high INT on a character who probably wants about four other stats higher.
It's dangerous territory to try and interpret rules based on power level when your perception of power level is in turn based on your perception of the power level of something else. That leaves you a lot of space to be either flat-out wrong or at the very least making a decision based on opinion that should be based more on fact.
For instance, my level 3 PFS fighter (I have a profile up for him, if you want to have a look) uses CE and has never used the withdraw action. In fact, he's always at the front lines, because I can't think of a single time that he didn't have the highest AC at the table.
So as you can see, someone with a different experience with CE might then interpret the cost level of Gang Up to be different, and in turn gauge the power level differently, and so forth. So probably best to leave any less-than-glaringly-obvious power level considerations out of the rules discussions, you know?
flanking is a condition that (per Core book / PRD) explicitly applies to melee attacks.
Not only that, but it was specifically shot down in the FAQ on Gang Up:
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
However, consider something like the Lunge feat. That gives you extra reach for the purposes of taking your melee attacks, but you don't threaten in the extra reach.
During your turn, you can make melee attacks into that area, thus you threaten it. You stop threatening it after your turn is up.
A better example is a guy with a whip. Does not threaten, but 2 buddies do, so he can get flanking and sneak attack and whatnot.
Gang-up is a great feat. Allowing it to work with just you and another guy makes it damn near mandatory. I'm not sure that's the intent, but the rogues at my table could certainly use the help.
It's dangerous territory to try and interpret rules based on power level when your perception of power level is in turn based on your perception of the power level of something else.
I'm not; I'm interpreting rules by the letter of what they say.
I'm then arguing that the interpretation is also, in my opinion, within the spirit of the rules based on my perception of power level.
For instance, my level 3 PFS fighter (I have a profile up for him, if you want to have a look) uses CE and has never used the withdraw action. In fact, he's always at the front lines, because I can't think of a single time that he didn't have the highest AC at the table.
This is something of a tangent, but:
1) I'd ask "What does that really get you?" Generally, I don't think cranking out your AC at the expense of other things serves the party except in a few edge cases that I would argue aren't that common in most games, such as when enemies literally cannot get past you to attack softer targets.
2) I'd point out that, unless you picked CE as a prereq to another feat you do want (which is in line with my opinion that it's a crappy feat that you take because some cool feats require it), you'd be better off at this point with Dodge, which gives the same +1 dodge bonus to AC without requiring you to attack that round and also take -1 to all your attack rolls to get it.
During your turn, you can make melee attacks into that area, thus you threaten it. You stop threatening it after your turn is up.
A better example is a guy with a whip. Does not threaten, but 2 buddies do, so he can get flanking and sneak attack and whatnot.
Good catch.
I'm not sure that's the intent, but the rogues at my table could certainly use the help.
That's pretty much where I am, too; I don't see it being worth the feat buy-in even assuming my interpretation is correct except for melee sneak attackers or some other kind of specialized build that places an abnormally high value on flanking (maybe something with teamwork feats), and I don't feel like it overpowers any of those guys.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm not; I'm interpreting rules by the letter of what they say.
I'm then arguing that the interpretation is also, in my opinion, within the spirit of the rules based on my perception of power level.
Oh, okay, I must've misunderstood then. My apologies. :)
This is something of a tangent, but:
1) I'd ask "What does that really get you?" Generally, I don't think cranking out your AC at the expense of other things serves the party except in a few edge cases that I would argue aren't that common in most games, such as when enemies literally cannot get past you to attack softer targets.
2) I'd point out that, unless you picked CE as a prereq to another feat you do want (which is in line with my opinion that it's a crappy feat that you take because some cool feats require it), you'd be better off at this point with Dodge, which gives the same +1 dodge bonus to AC without requiring you to attack that round and also take -1 to all your attack rolls to get it.
Answering both 1) and 2):
First of all, Cledwyn has Dodge AND Combat Expertise. ;) But more to the point, I originally took CE just as a prereq for Improved Disarm and Improved Trip, though since then I've actually made use of its own functionality. For instance, with ImpDisarm and a MW flail, Cledwyn currently has a +12 to disarm, versus his normal +8 for a basic attack. If you're fighting multiple enemies and can get a +1 AC just by making your to-hit on a disarm (that you were going to do anyway) slightly less excessive, then why not? Still great odds of success, with a bonus to AC.Similarly, there have been times when I've been up against a low-AC enemy that was nasty with its own attacks, and it was to my advantage to take a -1 that wouldn't matter anyway in exchange for a +1 that could save me a lot of damage. Basically, it's like a less drastic version of Fighting Defensively: 50% of the bonus for 25% of the cost. It's not something I "leave on" constantly, but if you know when to use it, it can definitely be worth it.