Ranged Flanking


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

If it worked the way you suggest, then the FAQ that says Gang Up does not work with ranged attacks will have to be rewritten because your logic would make that feat work as well.

FAQ wrote:

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)

They didn't just say that ranged attacks don't get the +2 bonus. They said that ranged attacks don't benefit from the feat at all. That leads me to believe that it wouldn't work for anything else that would appear to grant flanking from range. This means that no, a rogue cannot flank with a ranged weapon to get sneak attack with a +0 bonus to the attack.


Remy Balster wrote:
Tharken wrote:


You've just made ranged rogues not completely terrible. Good job.
They'd still need a way to threaten with ranged though. Ie Snap Shot, or Improved Snap Shot.
Are you sure ? The only paragraph that refers to threatening is this :
Quote:
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Unless I missed something, not threatening stops your flanking buddy from getting a flank bonus, but it doesn't stop you from flanking.

Robert A Matthews wrote:


They didn't just say that ranged attacks don't get the +2 bonus. They said that ranged attacks don't benefit from the feat at all. That leads me to believe that it wouldn't work for anything else that would grant flanking from range.

I agree that the RAI here is extremely clear, flanking isn't supposed to work at range. But that one rule is a case of specific beats general. All it says is that the feat doesn't work with ranged attacks, it doesn't change the general rule unless you extrapolate.

I'm going to blatantly ignore RAI and go with RAW on this, because ranged rogues are awful and need the help. They're such a common archetype in media, and they just don't work at all in PF. Well, until now.


Tharken wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Tharken wrote:


You've just made ranged rogues not completely terrible. Good job.
They'd still need a way to threaten with ranged though. Ie Snap Shot, or Improved Snap Shot.
Are you sure ? The only paragraph that refers to threatening is this :
Quote:
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Unless I missed something, not threatening stops your flanking buddy from getting a flank bonus, but it doesn't stop you from flanking.

Robert A Matthews wrote:


They didn't just say that ranged attacks don't get the +2 bonus. They said that ranged attacks don't benefit from the feat at all. That leads me to believe that it wouldn't work for anything else that would grant flanking from range.

I agree that the RAI here is extremely clear, flanking isn't supposed to work at range. But that one rule is a case of specific beats general. All it says is that the feat doesn't work with ranged attacks, it doesn't change the general rule unless you extrapolate.

I'm going to blatantly ignore RAI and go with RAW on this, because ranged rogues are awful and need the help. They're such a common archetype in media, and they just don't work at all in PF. Well, until now.

The design team isn't going to rule on every corner case. This is close enough to the FAQ for Gang Up that it is relevant. If ranged flanking works with outflank, then it would have to work with Gang Up as well. It doesn't work with Gang Up, therefore it can't work with Outflank either.


Robert A Matthews wrote:

You can't gain any benefit for trying to flank with a ranged weapon. There is already a FAQ that says you can't. You can provide a flank for someone else since you still threaten, but you can't yourself gain any benefit from flanking with a ranged weapon.

FAQ wrote:

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)

—Jason Bulmahn, 08/13/10

The rule is clear as quated by R. Matthews, "flanking specifically refers to melee attacks"


FAQ wrote:
flanking specifically refers to melee attacks

Hm, tough one to twist. I suppose that sentence can still be technically true without being taken as an addition to the core rules. After all, the "flanking" chapter of the combat rules does specifically refer to melee attacks at some point.

When discussing how to get a flanking bonus.

Robert A Matthews wrote:


The design team isn't going to rule on every corner case. This is close enough to the FAQ for Gang Up that it is relevant.

Yes, of course. If the design team made a FAQ about that, they would clearly rule against my interpretation. But, to be blunt, I don't really care about that. My only aim here is to make the RAW say what I want it to say.

I keep my games RAW, but if I can use obscure ruleslawyery technicalities to make them better, you bet I'll do it.

Sczarni

Is it not better to just call a spade a spade, or in this case a "House Rule"? If you want to play by RAW, there is no ranged flanking...


I'm kind of new to this forum, so what is meant when someone says RAW?

On topic: flanking explicitly states melee, so rangend attacker does npt get flanking bonus.


RAW= Rules As Written. It means taking the rules and doing exactly what they say. This is opposed to Rules As Interpreted/Intended, or RAI.


Thanks Jay!


Remy Balster wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4.
What flanking bonus? You only get a flanking bonus when attacking with a melee weapon.

Whatever it was before is now +4. The RAW effect of the feat.

It doesn't say changes from +2 to +4. It says increases to +4.

Yes, it does.

So the bonus you would get if you were attacking with a melee weapon increases to +4. But that bonus still isn't applied to a ranged attack, because that bonus is only ever added to melee attacks.

You are contributing to a state in which flanking exists, yes. Your bonus from flanking exists. But flanking still only applies to a melee attack.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

FAQed so one day we can just point to the faq.


Remy Balster wrote:
Claxon wrote:

FLANKING IS MELEE ONLY.

No feats currently change this despite what any one thinks or says. Flanking has the inherent requirement of melee, and nothing, NOTHING, changes that basic requirement anywhere.

Snapshot allows you to threaten at range, and thus would allow someone else who is threatening the same enemy with a melee weapon to receive flanking, but a ranged combatant will never receive flanking.

Glad to know your opinion.

Can we stick to RAW here on the Rules Questions messageboard?

Why don't you?

Someone has pointed out, and it has been pointed out multiple times, that one designer of the game has stated that flanking specifically refers to melee attacks only.

Lantern Lodge

I'm going to reemphasize the difference between flanking bonus and flanking.

Lets take a 10th level Zen Archer for example. They have Improved Unarmed Strike, Point Blank Master, and an equivalent to Snap Shot called "Reflexive Shot".

1. IF said archer stands in flanking position, is he flanking that target? YES! No matter how you rule it (whether it has to be a melee weapon or he can also do it with a ranged weapon), he is threatening the target with both a melee and ranged attack.

2. Does he get Flanking Bonuses on his attacks? Depends: If he uses unarmed strikes, yes. If he is using his bow to attack, no, because the +2 Flanking Bonus only applies to melee attacks.

As evidence that Flanking Bonus and Flanking are different, consider this feat:

Flanking Foil wrote:
Benefit: Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.

Now let's consider a few corner cases where this is important:

A.

Ultimate Combat wrote:
While you are flanked and adjacent to an ally with this feat, you receive a +2 circumstance bonus to AC against attacks from opponents flanking you.

So, even though the archer doesn't get a Flanking Bonus when he attacks with his bow, because of #1 he counts as flanking and therefore this feat applies to his ranged attacks.

This also applies to the Improved Back to Back feat and Jani Style feat.

B. Probably the biggest reason why we argue this so much is Sneak Attack.

Sneak Attack wrote:
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.

WHENEVER a rogue flanks her target, she gains extra damage on her attacks. She DOES NOT have to have flanking bonuses on those attacks. Another way to say it is whenever the rogue is flanking her target, she gains extra damage on her attacks.

I'm going to continue to place my bets on that a character with a ranged weapon can still be considered flanking. As things are currently, I feel it's a little broken, but the work around is to have a spike gauntlet equipped or have Improved Unarmed Strike.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

My main PFS character is a ninja, and so ranged sneak attack is quite important to that character's utility in combat.

So the description on wether you get a flanking bonus or not is pretty clear cut (melee only), wether you're flanking the target (or not) seems to have some wiggle in it.

I couldn't really care about gaining a flanking bonus to attacks, but it'd be very nice to be considered flanking. Afterall, you're in melee combat with an enemy, and his ally is 15ft behind you with a longbow trained on your back. I think it's fair to say you're in a lot of trouble from both directions.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

I'm going to reemphasize the difference between flanking bonus and flanking.

Lets take a 10th level Zen Archer for example. They have Improved Unarmed Strike, Point Blank Master, and an equivalent to Snap Shot called "Reflexive Shot".

1. IF said archer stands in flanking position, is he flanking that target? YES! No matter how you rule it (whether it has to be a melee weapon or he can also do it with a ranged weapon), he is threatening the target with both a melee and ranged attack.

2. Does he get Flanking Bonuses on his attacks? Depends: If he uses unarmed strikes, yes. If he is using his bow to attack, no, because the +2 Flanking Bonus only applies to melee attacks.

As evidence that Flanking Bonus and Flanking are different, consider this feat:

Flanking Foil wrote:
Benefit: Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.

Now let's consider a few corner cases where this is important:

A.

Ultimate Combat wrote:
While you are flanked and adjacent to an ally with this feat, you receive a +2 circumstance bonus to AC against attacks from opponents flanking you.

So, even though the archer doesn't get a Flanking Bonus when he attacks with his bow, because of #1 he counts as flanking and therefore this feat applies to his ranged attacks.

This also applies to the Improved Back to Back feat and Jani Style feat.

B. Probably the biggest reason why we argue this so much is Sneak Attack.

Sneak Attack wrote:
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.
WHENEVER a rogue flanks her target, she gains extra damage on her attacks. She DOES NOT have to have flanking bonuses on those...

And I'm going to reemphasize the fact that if it works the way you are suggesting, then the FAQ for Gang Up is wrong and needs to be rewritten. Interpreting it in the way you are attempting will make ranged flanking possible with gang up and the dev team has already ruled that it does not work.

Lantern Lodge

I can see where your coming from Robert. The FAQ wording seems to be off, and here's why:

If I stand in flanking position and I have a pistol in one hand, and a spiked gauntlet in the other, am I flanking that person? I am. I am flanking. The extra bit you could add is that you are flanking with the spiked gauntlet. But the fact remains, I --- am --- flanking. Do you agree with that?

Flanking should have nothing to do with what weapon you use, so long as you are threatening your opponent. Flanking Bonuses are dependent on what weapon you use though.

Note that there's also no clear "yes" or "no" in this FAQ. It only says that "ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat". That could be because ranged attacks don't normally threaten an opponent. It could also be because ranged attacks don't get flanking bonuses.

Meaning the only part of this FAQ standing against my interpretation left is the phrase "and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks". As I demonstrated above, even if you are using a ranged weapon, you still can be flanking an opponent, even with this FAQ.

The FAQ makes a little more sense when change that one bit to as thus: "and since the flanking bonus specifically refers to melee attacks...".

The FAQ would be most accurate with the book if it said this "Yes, If you have snap shot or similar mechanic that allows you to threaten that target. But remember that ranged attacks do not gain the flanking bonus."

Until any change is made, carry a spiked gauntlet with your sniper rogue, or take 3 levels of Zen-archer for point blank master and Improved Unarmed Strike. You'll still be "flanking", even though it's with a unarmed strike, and you'll get sneak attacks with a bow.


Back in October, I laid out details showing how you get ranged flanking. Link

To paraphrase:

Cevah wrote:

Flanking has two benefits:

1) Attack bonus
2) Sneak attack damage
Each has conditions needed to achieve.

Flanking wrote:

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.

By changing weapons from Whip to a Reach Weapon, you change from no flanking bonus to hit, to a plus 2. Yet you did not move. How did "Flanking" change? It did not.

Rogues would love a +2 bonus, but they really want the condition of Flanking. I believe RAW supports ranged flanking as a condition.

Cevah wrote:
IMO, the flanking mechanic is supposed to represent your divided attention, I can see my attention is divided from a pair of dagger throwers on opposite sides of me even though I cannot reach them with my sword.

I still stand by this.

/cevah


Strictly speaking, it's not flanking that gives sneak attack bonus. Flanking gives denied-dex-bonus, denied-dex-bonus gives sneak attack bonus.

My interpretation of the rules is that really, whether or not you "are flanking" isn't really a thing the game has. When you are making a melee attack, you have flanking under certain circumstances. A non-melee attack never has flanking, because flanking is an attribute of melee attacks.

So it's not that you have flanking, but that your attack does. Except the wording is sort of careless about this distinction because it generally doesn't matter.

There are other ways to deny dex bonus to AC and get sneak attack.


This is the problem with your interpretation.

Gang Up wrote:

Benefit: You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioninb.

Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.

This feat caused many people(including myself) to believe that you could gain flanking with ranged attacks. A FAQ came out saying that ranged attacks don't benefit from this feat. In order for your interpretation to be correct, the FAQ that stated ranged attacks don't benefit from Gang Up must be wrong. If the FAQ is wrong then you should work on getting it changed. Until then, flanking only works with melee attacks.

Lantern Lodge

The part your missing though (for the work around of an Improved Unarmed Strike or Spike Gauntlet) is that the character in question doesn't gain the flanking status because of a ranged attack, but rather a melee attack.

My interpretation as to what it should be does in fact disagree with the FAQ.

My interpretation as to what it is now with the FAQ doesn't, it works with it. Your not using a ranged weapon to gain the flanking status, but a melee weapon. You have the status of flanking. Now you will attack with a ranged weapon while having while flanking that opponent.

@Seebs: Flanking directly allows you to sneak attack opponents

Sneak Attack wrote:
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.


... Wait, does flanking not deny dex bonus then? I thought it did, and if it does, there's no need for that extra qualifier, but maybe I'm confused.


seebs wrote:
... Wait, does flanking not deny dex bonus then? I thought it did, and if it does, there's no need for that extra qualifier, but maybe I'm confused.

You're confused. :-)

If flanking denied dex bonus, the +2 would be on top of whatever dex loss to AC the flank caused. Rogues would *really* love that, but alas, that is not what it is.

/cevah

Lantern Lodge

You might be thinking of being flat footed :)


Robert A Matthews wrote:

This is the problem with your interpretation.

Gang Up wrote:

Benefit: You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioninb.

Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.

This feat caused many people(including myself) to believe that you could gain flanking with ranged attacks. A FAQ came out saying that ranged attacks don't benefit from this feat. In order for your interpretation to be correct, the FAQ that stated ranged attacks don't benefit from Gang Up must be wrong. If the FAQ is wrong then you should work on getting it changed. Until then, flanking only works with melee attacks.

The reason you normally don't get considered flanking with ranged attacks is the piece you are missing.

With snap shot, you 'threaten'. And that is the missing link for ranged attacking to flank.

Normal ranged attacks can't do that, and so for all flanking related purposes, cannot benefit, because they cannot flank.

BUT, with snap shot you DO flank. Because you THREATEN. This one distinction makes ALL the difference. It blurs the lines between melee and ranged.

Now, the FAQ about Gang Up is totally different. Gang Up doesn't change the same underlying function of your ranged attacks like Snap Shot does. So the FAQ for Gang Up is still talking about regular default ranged attacks. And we all agree regular default ranged attacks don't flank, don't get benefits for flanking, etc.

But, since we can THREATEN with ranged attacks with Snap Shot, then we can Flank with ranged attacks. That doesn't give an attack bonus, because the bonus is only to melee attacks, by default rules. But we are flanking with ranged attacks.

So, if something else that depends on Flanking, this character could qualify as satisfying the Flanking requirement. Even at range, because they are Flanking.

If something gives a bonus to 'attack rolls' when flanking, they would benefit from this.

If something adds to damage when flanking, they would benefit from this.

Shadow Lodge

Remy Balster wrote:

Amulet of Natural Armor

"This amulet, usually containing some type of magically preserved monster hide or other natural armor—such as bone, horn, carapace, or beast scales—toughens the wearer’s body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet."

Sweet! And enchancement to a bonus my character doesn't have! I guess these things don't work for most characters.

See how it says "his natural armor"? Standard races don't have natural armor. So how... pray tel... does a character get any benefit from wearing one of these amulets?

Do you think, maybe, that we just consider his 'effective' natural armor bonus to be +0?

Wouldn't the 'effective' flanking bonus of all noneligible attacks be +0? Of course it is.

Default rules for flanking gives a +2 to melee attacks when you flank. All other attack rolls have an 'effective' +0 flanking bonus. because they don't get the +2...

Insert specific Feat text which always trumps general: "your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4."

And BAM, just like that, your attack rolls get a flanking bonus of +4.

This is RAW. If this isn't RAW... then Amulets of natural Armor provide no benefit if you didn't 'already' have a natural armor bonus. But that is rediculous, because we all know that they in fact do work, even if you don't have a natural armor bonus.

RAW for natural armor is this (from the Barkskin spell description): "A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0."

Whereas there is no such text for an effective "flanking bonus on attack rolls" that I am aware of. I suppose you could make a logical case for it, but apparently not a RAW one.


Remy Balster wrote:

The reason you normally don't get considered flanking with ranged attacks is the piece you are missing.

With snap shot, you 'threaten'. And that is the missing link for ranged attacking to flank.

Normal ranged attacks can't do that, and so for all flanking related purposes, cannot benefit, because they cannot flank.

BUT, with snap shot you DO flank. Because you THREATEN. This one distinction makes ALL the difference. It blurs the lines between melee and ranged.

Now, the FAQ about Gang Up is totally different. Gang Up doesn't change the same underlying function of your ranged attacks like Snap Shot does. So the FAQ for Gang Up is still talking about regular default ranged attacks. And we all agree regular default ranged attacks don't flank, don't get benefits for flanking, etc.

But, since we can THREATEN with ranged attacks with Snap Shot, then we can Flank with ranged attacks. That doesn't give an attack bonus, because the bonus is only to melee attacks, by default rules. But we are flanking with ranged attacks.

So, if something else that depends on Flanking, this character could qualify as satisfying the Flanking requirement. Even at range, because they are Flanking.

If something gives a bonus to 'attack rolls' when flanking, they would benefit from this.

If something adds to damage when flanking, they would benefit from this.

Ummmm....

Flanking wrote:

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.

Let's have have a bad guy "B" surrounded by too good guys "G" at 10'.

_ _ _ _ _
G _ B _ G
_ _ _ _ _

If the good guys have a pair of Longspears, they have melee weapons, and both threaten, and they are on oppisite sides.
If we give them Javelins, they no longer threaten, yet they have not changed position.

You say you are in doubt that they are flanking? Well, what is the test? See above: If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space. In the same position with longspears, that line was there. They did not move, so the line is still there.

Flanking, the condition, is dependent on position, not weapons or threat. Flanking Bonus is dependent on position, and also on weapon and threat. The rogue's sneak attack is all about the condition, not the bonus.

/cevah


Flanking isn't really a condition at all, though. It's a rule for melee attacks. A melee attack can get a typed bonus ("+2 flanking bonus") under some circumstances, which involve people being "threatened". But there's no condition of "flanking" as written, it's just a term used in discussing a special rule for melee attacks.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
You might be thinking of being flat footed :)

I think so. Sorry!

(These rules are slightly confusing to me because my GM *does* give flanking for ranged attacks. Obviously, I know that what we play isn't RAW, but then I tend to forget the details of the rules.)


seebs wrote:
Flanking isn't really a condition at all, though. It's a rule for melee attacks. A melee attack can get a typed bonus ("+2 flanking bonus") under some circumstances, which involve people being "threatened". But there's no condition of "flanking" as written, it's just a term used in discussing a special rule for melee attacks.

What about Sneak Attack?

Sneak Attack wrote:
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.

Seems to want the condition and not care about the bonus.

/cevah


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think that creates the concept of a condition of flanking which can exist independently from melee. Flanking is a rule only for melee attacks. Sneak attack applies when flanking. When are you flanking? When you are making a melee attack and certain other conditions apply. The position alone does not create flanking; it's just that the position is the only additional requirement on top of:
1. You are making a melee attack.
2. Someone on the creature's opposite side is threatening them.

Basically, the second paragraph there is a clarification of the word "opposite". It doesn't change the fact that you only have flanking when making a melee attack and when both of the participants in "flanking" are threatening the opponent in the middle.


seebs wrote:

I don't think that creates the concept of a condition of flanking which can exist independently from melee. Flanking is a rule only for melee attacks. Sneak attack applies when flanking. When are you flanking? When you are making a melee attack and certain other conditions apply. The position alone does not create flanking; it's just that the position is the only additional requirement on top of:

1. You are making a melee attack.
2. Someone on the creature's opposite side is threatening them.

Basically, the second paragraph there is a clarification of the word "opposite". It doesn't change the fact that you only have flanking when making a melee attack and when both of the participants in "flanking" are threatening the opponent in the middle.

Then surprise round archer rogues weep. They depend upon ranged sneak attack.

Sneak Attack in not limited to melee.

The first line in the flanking text starts out "When...", followed by "+2 flanking bonus". It is clarified by "if" which details "When". That single statement is the entire paragraph, which is about a "Flanking Bonus".

The second paragraph clarifies what flanking actually is. It even gives you a test to see if you flank [draw a line...]. It does NOT give any bonus. Rogues need flanking to get sneak attacks, but they do not need the bonus.

Unless they really suck at hitting. :-)

/cevah


I guess we need a developer to come in and not equivocate and make it clear that flanking applies to melee attack, or conversely that there is a set of circumstances under which flanking does apply to ranged attacks.

Can anyone write an statement that fits the newest FAQ request guidelines so that we can have one particular post for everyone to FAQ.


21 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

FAQ question:

CRB p197, under "Flanking", first paragraph defines a "flanking bonus". The second paragraph defines a test for "flanking". Is "flanking", not the "flanking bonus", solely dependent on position per this paragraph? This affects ranged sneak attacks.

Does this change for ranged weapon(s) that also threaten?

/cevah

EDIT: Added last question.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

That is not all of what was asked, nor clearly worded, Cevah.

Can a person with a ranged weapon ever flank someone, such as with the Snap Shot feat? Can a ranged attacker ever gain the bonuses and benefits of flanking.


27 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 4 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQ question:

CRB p197, under "Flanking", first paragraph defines a "flanking bonus" and the requirements to get it. Can a character with Snap Shot feat and wielding a ranged weapon meet the qualifications of "opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner"? If he can qualify, is he "flanking" while in position to threaten opposite his ally? (Not get a "bonus", but be "flanking")


Fomsie wrote:

That is not all of what was asked, nor clearly worded, Cevah.

Can a person with a ranged weapon ever flank someone, such as with the Snap Shot feat? Can a ranged attacker ever gain the bonuses and benefits of flanking.

Added an extra question for the threatening weapons.

ALL: FAQ rules state each question is evaluated by single post. Please only FAQ the post with the actual question.

/cevah

Lantern Lodge

Was going to make my own FAQ post, buy Remy's seems to do the job best (Sorry Cevah).

Everyone FAQ Remy's Post!


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Was going to make my own FAQ post, buy Remy's seems to do the job best (Sorry Cevah).

I don't mind.

I don't think Remy's post addresses the sneak attack issue, since it could be with non-threatening ranged weapons. But hey, if they BOTH get lots of attention, all the better.

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Everyone FAQ Remy's Post!

And mine.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Was going to make my own FAQ post, buy Remy's seems to do the job best (Sorry Cevah).

I don't mind.

I don't think Remy's post addresses the sneak attack issue, since it could be with non-threatening ranged weapons. But hey, if they BOTH get lots of attention, all the better.

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Everyone FAQ Remy's Post!

And mine.

/cevah

They both ask similar questions, but are addressing different aspects of the issue with flanking interacting with other abilities. FAQ em both!


Remy Balster wrote:
They both ask similar questions, but are addressing different aspects of the issue with flanking interacting with other abilities. FAQ em both!

Thanks, Remy.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:

Then surprise round archer rogues weep. They depend upon ranged sneak attack.

Sneak Attack in not limited to melee.

I never said it was. But flanking is.

Quote:

The first line in the flanking text starts out "When...", followed by "+2 flanking bonus". It is clarified by "if" which details "When". That single statement is the entire paragraph, which is about a "Flanking Bonus".

The second paragraph clarifies what flanking actually is.

But only within the context of a melee attack you are making when you and another character both threaten the target.

It is clarifying how to test for "opposite". It is not changing the rest of the requirements for flanking.

Quote:
It even gives you a test to see if you flank [draw a line...]. It does NOT give any bonus. Rogues need flanking to get sneak attacks, but they do not need the bonus.

Rogues don't need flanking to get sneak attack. They need flanking or a circumstance that denies dex bonus to AC.


Robert A Matthews wrote:

You can't gain any benefit for trying to flank with a ranged weapon. There is already a FAQ that says you can't. You can provide a flank for someone else since you still threaten, but you can't yourself gain any benefit from flanking with a ranged weapon.

FAQ wrote:

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)

—Jason Bulmahn, 08/13/10

Gang Up (Combat) wrote:

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.

Curious that the old FAQ ignored the "Normal" line.

Also, neither the feat nor the FAQ require that you threaten to be flanking an opponent.

/cevah


seebs wrote:
Cevah wrote:
The second paragraph clarifies what flanking actually is.

But only within the context of a melee attack you are making when you and another character both threaten the target.

It is clarifying how to test for "opposite". It is not changing the rest of the requirements for flanking.

It is defining the requirements for flanking, not for a flanking bonus.

As we appear to disagree, I recommend you FAQ either my or Remy's FAQ question above. Better yet, FAQ 'em both. :-)

/cevah

Silver Crusade

If you want to play a ranged Rogue take the Scout arch type from the APG.
At 8th level you gain the Skirmisher ability.

Skirmisher (Ex): At 8th level, whenever a scout moves
more than 10 feet in a round and makes an attack action,
the attack deals sneak attack damage as if the target was
f lat-footed. If the scout makes more than one attack this
turn, this ability only applies to the first attack. Foes with
uncanny dodge are immune to this ability. This ability
replaces improved uncanny dodge.

This really rocks. My rouge dipped into a level of musket master. Now he can do a move action and make his standard attack with his +1 holy musket and deal 1d10+7+[2d6 vs. evil]+5d6 sneak.


And Lou, you bring up a great point about why (when this gets addressed by the Paizo Development Team) the answer will be no. Because it comparison to other rogue archetypes and abilities designed to provide new ways to get sneak attack it would be incredibly overpowered.

If ranged flanking were to exist there would be a preponderance of rogues with gang up (which we already know doesn't work) and snap shot and all the archery feats full attacking and sneak attacking on all their attacks. And then we would collectively stop complaining about how much damage a gunslinger can do in a round and start complaining that rogues are now (finally) overpowered.

It simply wont happen. It is out of line with existing abilities and power levels. I am very confidant whenever this is reviewed we will have a shiny new FAQ stating resolutely no, you are not flanking with a ranged weapon.


Claxon wrote:

And Lou, you bring up a great point about why (when this gets addressed by the Paizo Development Team) the answer will be no. Because it comparison to other rogue archetypes and abilities designed to provide new ways to get sneak attack it would be incredibly overpowered.

If ranged flanking were to exist there would be a preponderance of rogues with gang up (which we already know doesn't work) and snap shot and all the archery feats full attacking and sneak attacking on all their attacks. And then we would collectively stop complaining about how much damage a gunslinger can do in a round and start complaining that rogues are now (finally) overpowered.

It simply wont happen. It is out of line with existing abilities and power levels. I am very confidant whenever this is reviewed we will have a shiny new FAQ stating resolutely no, you are not flanking with a ranged weapon.

Could you imagine setting up an encounter against a thieves' guild? It'd be damn near impossible not to have a party wipe.


fretgod99 wrote:
Could you imagine setting up an encounter against a thieves' guild? It'd be damn near impossible not to have a party wipe.

It would be impossible. If a group of rogues ever managed to surround you it'd be over. Your classic ambush in the mountain pass would mean absolute death to the party as rogues on both sides rain down arrows into the narrow mountain pass from slightly higher ground.

Liberty's Edge

Also there are rules for ranged sneak attacks: Sniping.

Lantern Lodge

There are plenty of work arounds for having large amounts of ranged flanking.

For the player rogue, there's a decent amount of monsters immune to flanking and/or sneak attacking. Your still limited by everything a typical rogue is limited by, just with a ranged weapon.

Second, flanking with a ranged weapon requires snap shot, and only then at 5' range. You would need improved snap shot to extend that out to 15', and that's the best you can do. That's a lot of feats to add for the feats already required to make ranged attacking good. Also to note, improved snap shot requires 9 bab, making it only possible to flank opponents directly next to you in PFS since rogues need level 12 or multiclassing to access it.

Next, there are spells that can shut down ranged combat.

This honestly sounds on par for damage and ability for a level 12 character. It's not broken.

As such, the encounter with a thieves guild first happen until later in levels,and by then your group should be able to deal with that. Fly 20 ft into the air, cast that one wind spell, etc. it's really not broken.


yeah, setting up a sneak attack from fifteen feet just means the monster will have to move once before he pastes you.

51 to 100 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Ranged Flanking All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.