| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So a Cav. gives the party Outflank for an encounter. I am the only one in the party with Gang up as a feat. So I don't stand in the normal flanking position but still gain the flanking bonus because a pair of allies are flanking the bad guy. Who gets AoO on who's crits?
Thanks in advance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets name the parties at the moment:
Joe (the guy with Gang Up)
Ally 1
Ally 2
The wording is rather clear. Both you and an ally need to be flanking a creature.
If Gang Up is only allowing you to flank then there is no 'ally' that is also flanking.
Now, in your example Allies 1 and 2 are flanking the guy. Due to Gang Up you are also flanking. Whoever has Outflank benefits. Since The Cavalier is giving it to all of you you all benefit.
Now, last peice.
If Joe crits it would not benefit Ally 1 or Ally 2 since he is not providing them with flanking.
If Ally 1 crits then Ally 2 AND Joe both get AoOs.
If Ally 2 crits then Ally 1 AND Joe both get AoOs.
The rationale is that Joe is being benefited by Allies 1 and 2 while not benefiting them in return.
Since this is a corner case this is just my interpretation.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Joe crits it would not benefit Ally 1 or Ally 2 since he is not providing them with flanking.
Joe is considered to be flanking the opponent since at least two of his allies are threatening that opponent.
This means Joe and his allies are flanking the same creature.
This means whenever Joe scores a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from his ally.
It doesn't say that his ally must be providing the flank bonus, and even if it did, both of them ARE providing the flank bonus.
This isn't the inquisitor ability so there's no crazy backwards benefit going on, they're all flanking and they all have the benefit of Outflank.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
I was set to disagree with Grick here, but he is correct. One could argue that this is not the intent of Outflank, but the current wording does not include "together" after the part about flanking. I would go so far as to argue that if Joe and Ally 1 had the Outflank feat but Ally 2 did not, they would still gain the benefit of this feat based just on the reading.
However if a GM chose to rule that this was not the intent of the feat, I would be hard pressed to disagree. Not a call that I would choose to make as two feats and good positioning went in to making this possible.
One could argue that this is not the intent of Outflank, but the current wording does not include "together" after the part about flanking.
If you're saying that the second sentence doesn't qualify "Ally" as being an ally with the feat that is flanking the creature, then I think that's clearly not the intent.
I think the two sentences are directly connected, and the Ally in S2 is the same Ally in S1, meaning all qualifications in S1 also apply to S2.
What it doesn't say, and I think doesn't intend, is that you and the ally have to be providing the flank for each other, rather than just flanking it.
Example:
[O][O] [T][T] [G]
[O][O] [T][T] [K]
O is Ogre, G is Goblin, K is Kobold. They're all fighting Troll.
Goblin and Kobold have the Outflank feat, Ogre doesn't.
Goblin and Kobold are both flanking Troll. So is Ogre.
Goblin and Kobold gain +4 to flanking, since they both have the feat, and are both flanking Troll.
Ogre doesn't gain the +4 because he doesn't have the feat. He just gets regular old +2 flanking.
If Goblin scores a critical hit, Troll provokes an attack of opportunity from Kobold, since both Goblin and Kobold have the feat, and they're both flanking troll.
Troll does not provoke from Ogre, even though Ogre is flanking and is an ally of Goblin, because Ogre doesn't have the Outflank feat.
You are flanking when your opponent is threatened by another enemy on its opposite side. Goblin and Kobold ARE flanking, though neither is providing the flank for the other.
If you're saying that the second sentence doesn't qualify "Ally" as being an ally with the feat that is flanking the creature, then I think that's clearly not the intent.
Not saying that. Just agreeing with your earlier assessment. I should have been more clear and stated that in my example the "they" did not include Ally 2 or anyone not having Outflank. My apologies for vagueness.
Grick: Joe is not providing flanking to Ally 1 and 2. Allies 1 and 2 have flanking due to each other but not due to Joe. On the other hand Allies 1 and 2 provide flanking to Joe.
Thus, Joe cannot help Allies 1 and 2 in anything that is based on flanking.
Allies 1 and 2 CAN help Joe in anything that is based on flanking.
- Gauss
Note: I can see the point Grick is making. I just do not agree with it as the intent and think the RAW has enough leeway to go both ways. Initially I said this was a corner case open to interpretation.
Grick: Joe is not providing flanking to Ally 1 and 2.
Outflank does not say anything about providing flanking.
"Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature"
Flanking is when "your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner."
In the example above, even if the ogre is not an ally of Goblin and Kobold, it still provides flanking as long as it's threatening Troll.
I just do not agree with it as the intent and think the RAW has enough leeway to go both ways.
You can certainly argue that the intent is otherwise, but there is no leeway in the RAW. Both of them are flanking the same creature, so the feat applies.
Grick: Joe is not providing flanking to Ally 1 and 2. Allies 1 and 2 have flanking due to each other but not due to Joe. On the other hand Allies 1 and 2 provide flanking to Joe.
Thus, Joe cannot help Allies 1 and 2 in anything that is based on flanking.
Allies 1 and 2 CAN help Joe in anything that is based on flanking.
- Gauss
Note: I can see the point Grick is making. I just do not agree with it as the intent and think the RAW has enough leeway to go both ways. Initially I said this was a corner case open to interpretation.
As long as at least one other ally with the feat counts as flanking the creature, outflank should funtion.
Grick:
My rationale is that Outflank specifies that you and the ally who also has this feat must be flanking the creature. So: I look at the definition of 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.
In your example the Goblin and Kobold are not flanking the Troll in relation to each other. Thus, those two characters are not flanking as far as Outflank is concerned. Only the Ogre-Kobold and Ogre-Goblin are flanking. And since the Ogre does not have Outflank neither pair can use Outflank.
- Gauss
Do we need to agree on a definition of "flanking?"
Flanking is a type of bonus you get due to certain battlefield positioning. That positioning is when your target is threatened from the opposite side.
If two characters are said to be "flanking" something, that means they are both gaining the flanking bonus to any melee attacks they might make.
You do not need to be granting anyone a flanking bonus in order to be flanking. You don't even need to threaten anyone. The only thing that needs to threaten is the creature on the opposite side.
So when Goblin and Kobold are said to be flanking Troll, this doesn't mean they're on opposite sides of it, only that they're both gaining the +2 flanking bonus on melee attacks.
If Goblin and Kobold suffered some kind of horrible accident that removed any natural weapons they might have, and they don't have improved unarmed strike, and they have no weapons at all, meaning they don't threaten ANY squares, they're STILL both flanking Troll, because Troll is threatened on his opposite side by Ogre (and Ogre threatens).
This is what the game means by flanking: it's gaining a bonus on melee attacks because the target is threatened. So when Outflank says you must be flanking the creature, it means you both need to be gaining the flanking bonus, not that you need to be on opposite sides, or threatening, or whatever.
Like I said, it is a grey area. The way I read it is that the people in question must be providing flanking to each other. Outflank does not mention a flanking bonus. It mentions that both people must have outflank and be flanking the creature. Since they are not flanking the creature in regards to each other (as per the flanking rules) they do not qualify.
Anyhow, I have admited this is open to interpretation. I do not need to argue the point. People will choose a POV they like and it looks like I am in the minority anyhow.
- Gauss
The way I read it is that the people in question must be providing flanking to each other.
Is that what you think flanking is, or is that what you think Outflank says? It sounds like you're talking about Outflank, but then:
It mentions that both people must have outflank and be flanking the creature. Since they are not flanking the creature in regards to each other (as per the flanking rules) they do not qualify.
You keep adding things like "as per the flanking rules" which implies that the flanking rules have something to do with threatening the creature. They don't. You don't have to threaten in order to flank. You don't need to help anyone do anything in order to flank. You can be completely unarmed and still flank, as per the flanking rules.
If it really was a grey area in the rules, there would be some kind of support for that interpretation. This has come up a bunch of times in flanking threads, and I really want someone to really explain what they're talking about without getting frustrated and walking away.
[Fighter] [Orc] [Bard]
If fighter and bard both threaten orc, then they're both flanking. Agreed?
If bard only has a whip, no improved unarmed strike, no other weapons, he doesn't threaten orc. Agreed?
In such a case, Fighter is not flanking Orc, because Orc is not threatened on his oppposite side. Agreed?
But in that same case, Bard is flanking Orc, because Orc is threatend on his opposite side. Agreed?
[Fighter] [Orc] [Bard1] [Bard2]
Now Bard2 joins in, right behind the first bard. He's also got a whip and nothing else.
Fighter still isn't flanking, because Orc is still not threatened on the opposite side.
Bard1 is still flanking, because fighter threatens Orc.
Bard2 is also flanking, because fighter threatens Orc. (Orc has soft cover in this case, but that's unrelated)
Bard1 and Bard2 are both flanking Orc. Neither is threatening orc, and neither is providing a flanking bonus for anyone else.
I have not mentioned anything about threatening. I have not brought threatening into this. (Normal) Flanking requires being on opposite sides of the creature. IF you are not on opposite sides you are not flanking it.
In your earlier example the Goblin and Kobold are not flanking the creature with respect to each other. They are flanking the creature with respect to the Ogre. Due to the wording on Outflank requiring an ally to be flanking with you I believe that it must be the Ogre-Goblin pair and the Ogre-Kobold pair that are checked to see if they qualify. Since the Ogre does not have Outflank they do not qualify. Goblin-Kobold pair are not flanking in respect to each other. Thus, they do not qualify even though they have Outflank.
Honestly, the two viewpoints are really simple. Either:
A) You believe that flanking regardless of how you achieve it qualifies you for Outflank.
B) I believe that only the flanking pair can outflank.
Since it seems to be a grey area, use which interpretation you choose. Personally, I would probably use your interpretation simply to give my players an advantage.
- Gauss
(Normal) Flanking requires being on opposite sides of the creature. IF you are not on opposite sides you are not flanking it.
You cannot be on opposite sides of the creature unless you're huge and it is within your center square. Even then, you're still not flanking because you need another creature to threaten it.
You're saying neither Bard is flanking the orc, despite the fact that the orc is threatened by another enemy creature on its opposite border? Would you not give the bards the +2 flanking bonus at all?
The reason I wrote out all those "Agreed?" was to find out where in the train of logic you disagree.
It sounds like you're of the opinion that you are only flanking if the guy on the opposite side can also get the flanking bonus as a result of your positioning. Is this correct? Meaning as soon as the bard stops threatening (equipping his whip) neither of them are flanking any more because the fighter can't get the flanking bonus.
I would rule it as follows:
If you are considered flanking then you get the AoO. Outflank mentions nothing of positioning or threatening. It just says "Whenever you are flanking the same creature" you get a +4 and an AoO on Crits.
Regarding the comment about 'being on opposite sides' forgive my 'error' for not putting in in the following terms:
(Normal) Flanking requires two creatures being on opposite sides of the creature being flanked. IF two creatures are not on opposite sides of the creature then they are not flanking it.
There? Better?
I am saying nothing about the Bard. I did not mention the bard. I mentioned the Ogre, the Kobold, and the Goblin. I prefer to use that example of yours so we are not dealing with multiple different scenarios. Your Bard scenario is more complicated since it also deals with Threatening issues and I am not disccusing threatning, I am discussing Flanking.
The Kobold-Ogre pair are flanking. The Goblin-Ogre pair are flanking. The Kobold-Goblin pair are not flanking. Seems simple to me. Now apply Outflank to those pairs that are flanking.
Mage Evolving: It is how Flanking is determined that I am following. That is on CRB p197.
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.
- Gauss
Mage Evolving: It is how Flanking is determined that I am following. That is on CRB p197.
- Gauss
I wasn't referring to your posts I was just offering a suggestion on how I would rule the scenario considering OutFlank and gang-up.
Mage Evolving: Ahh, my misunderstanding. A hazard of the nature of this discussion medium. That is why I direct my comments to specific people.
- Gauss
Your Bard scenario is more complicated since it also deals with Threatening issues and I am not disccusing threatning, I am discussing Flanking.
Flanking depends on threatening. If the opposite border is not threatened, you can't flank. Understanding this is key to the bard example that proves flanking does not need to happen in pairs.
(Normal) Flanking requires two creatures being on opposite sides of the creature being flanked. IF two creatures are not on opposite sides of the creature then they are not flanking it.
You keep thinking of flanking as two characters on opposite sides, and that's not what it is. It's a bonus you get when your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner. It often applies in pairs, since most characters are threatening, but that's not a requirement.
The rules are written with the assumption of normalcy. It assumes that everyone involved in combat is threatening. So when the 2nd paragraph on flanking says "then the opponent is flanked" that's assuming all parties are threatening, and that flanking would apply to both characters that are in position. That whole paragraph is an example to illustrate how to tell what the opposite border is, and to prevent confusion like the example graphic with the rogue and the fighter.
Say both goblin and kobold are completely unarmed. Neither of them threaten the troll.
Goblin makes a melee attack against troll. He gets a +2 flanking bonus because his opponent is threatened by another enemy creature on its opposite border. This means goblin is flanking.
Ogre makes a melee attack against troll. He does not get a +2 flanking bonus, because his opponent is not threatened by another enemy creature on its opposite border. This means Ogre is not flanking. He's in a position to flank, and he's helping others flank, but he himself is not flanking.
Kobold makes a melee attack against troll. He gets a +2 flanking bonus because his opponent is threatened by another enemy creature on its opposite border. This means kobold is flanking.
Now the orc cavalier (not pictured) turns on Tactician, granting everyone (except troll) the Outflank teamwork feat. Next round, Goblin and Kobold will benefit from the feat, because they each have an ally who is flanking Troll. Ogre gains no benefit from the feat, because he's not flanking.
Outflank does not say they must be flanking together, or in flanking position, or helping anyone else get flanking, only that they must be flanking the same creature. It's a basic misunderstanding of what flanking is, which the non-threat examples help illustrate.
Grick, threatening is assumed. I have not brought threatening into this. There is no reason to.
Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature
I read that to mean that it is you and the ally are the ones flanking. IE: A flanking pair. Check each pair.
It does not say 'whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are getting flanking bonuses against the same creature'
Im not going to dispute this further with you. We each have our interpretations. I have admited mine appears to be in the minority. I also admitted that yours is a valid interpretation. Now, you seem to be unable to admit that there is a grey area here. Fine. Like I said, I appear to be in the minority.
- Gauss
Just going to throw it out there but looking at this purely from a mechanical power level vs cost.
2 feat cost on 2 characters = 4 feat cost (exception cav and inq)
for this you get a a +2 increase to flank bonus, AoO's on critical hits and can flank when 2 others are threatening . so requires 2 characters doing a real flank or 3 doing a gang up flank
Looking at it purely by cost this seems very reasonable for the investment