In all of these cases, you're reading a statement about positioning as the sum total definition of flanking, and I'm reading it as purely restrictive.
In short, in:
I don't think that either side of this is intended to replace the other comments about what flanking requires; I think it addresses only the positioning, but that flanking is still a thing which inherently only applies conceptually to melee attacks. And I think the existing FAQ is adequately clear on this.Benefit: You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.
The FAQ under Gang Up claims "flanking specifically refers to melee attacks". Why was there no FAQ made for Flanking? Given the text "If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.", you have a stated condition required for flanking. That condition is not defined with melee, threatening, or attacking mentioned anywhere.
Likewise, the Gang Up feat's Normal line is "You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent." This also defines how to flank, without using melee, attacks, or threatening.
You appear to agree with Jason Bulmahn (Gang Up FAQ) that flanking is only for melee attacks, yet the text does not actually state that. Hence the need for an additional FAQ.
/cevah
*thinks* I'm wondering whether this might be a thing which was more explicit in 3.0/3.5 and just wasn't in the SRD.
Thinking is good. Wish more would do it. :-)
History lesson....
Text appears the same as in my printed 3.5 book. However 3.0 is different.
If you are making a melee attack against a creature, and an ally directly opposite you is threatening the creature, you and your ally flank the creature. You gain a +2 flanking bonus on your attack roll. A rogue in this position can also sneak attack the target. The ally must be on the other side of the defender, so that the defender is directly between you.
To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus to attack rolls against the defender. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that she is flanking.
Clearly 3.0 was much more strongly implied you had to be adjacent. However, you could read "directly" to allow distance. The glossary definition clearly requires the ally to threaten, but does not say it must be adjacent.
RAI, I think it was meant to be melee and adjacent, but the wording was not clear, especially since reach weapons allow you to melee from a distance.
I don't play with ranged flanking, but I think the PF RAW supports it. That RAW was the same in 3.5 but different in 3.0.
/cevah
|
I would agree with you Seebs, but I just got this vendetta against rules that don't make sense to me. Why would a guy with a bow, who is shooting you from the same distance as the guy with a sword, who would shoot you if you let your guard down and moved too fast (or anything else that would provoke an AoO), not count as flanking?
I can see not getting a flanking bonus, simply because a melee attack is much more focused on how to make contact with the enemies body, and has to adjust for his weapon moving and being parried. A ranger doesn't normally, so when's he's shooting the guy in the back it really makes no difference compared to what he normally does(except maybe in the ability of the guy to react, his dexterity bonus to AC should suffer a bit).
It doesn't make sense to me how a guy who has to adjust his fighting style to not get hit more is not being affected at all by the archer right next to him.
I feel this little tid bit is a small child compared to the current mounted combat system though. If they addressed this instead of that, I'd be sad.
None of that 3.0 language mentions or implies adjacent. All of it necessitates melee, though. It's may be more explicit than PF, sure. But I don't think the treatment has changed in any way. To flank and therefore be "flanking" requires melee attacks.
I would agree with you Seebs, but I just got this vendetta against rules that don't make sense to me. Why would a guy with a bow, who is shooting you from the same distance as the guy with a sword, who would shoot you if you let your guard down and moved too fast (or anything else that would provoke an AoO), not count as flanking?
I can see not getting a flanking bonus, simply because a melee attack is much more focused on how to make contact with the enemies body, and has to adjust for his weapon moving and being parried. A ranger doesn't normally, so when's he's shooting the guy in the back it really makes no difference compared to what he normally does(except maybe in the ability of the guy to react, his dexterity bonus to AC should suffer a bit).
It doesn't make sense to me how a guy who has to adjust his fighting style to not get hit more is not being affected at all by the archer right next to him.
I feel this little tid bit is a small child compared to the current mounted combat system though. If they addressed this instead of that, I'd be sad.
Put two longspear wielders on either side of an enemy, and he is flanked even though they are not adjacent. Change their weapons to crossbows, and he is not flanked? They did not change positions at all! Now lets try dagger wielders that are adjacent. If they melee attack they flank but if they throw they don't? Flanking now depends on how you attack with the exact same weapon in the exact same place? Where will this end?
The second paragraph under "Flanking" gives a position only test. Claiming it is a restriction of the first paragraph makes no sense since it does not refer to the first paragraph.
dictionary.search.yahoo.com
n. noun
A distinct division of written or printed matter that begins on a new, usually indented line, consists of one or more sentences, and typically deals with a single thought or topic or quotes one speaker's continuous words.
The first paragraph is about "flanking bonus". The second one is about "flanking". Related, but not restricting.
You want flanking to be melee only, then say so.
/cevah
|
Of course, at the time the CRB was first released, "ranged flanking" wasn't even an option... With the advent of such feats as Snap Shot and Point Blank Master this practice becomes possible, at least in theory (were it not for that pesky "melee only" caveat).
I would not be opposed to errata being issued to the Snap Shot feats that goes something like this;
Special: A character with Snap shot can gain the boni associated with Flanking.
Normal: Only melee attacks can benefit from flanking.
You want flanking to be melee only, then say so.They do.
"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."
You gave the requirements for gaining a +2 bonus. Look at the next paragraph. It defines flanking by position, not by melee. Hence the FAQ request.
The Gang Up feat refers to position, and not at all to melee. It even states the normal definition of flanking is by position.
Rogues want flanking for sneak attack. Ranged flanking would make it easier to achieve sneak attack. Getting a +2 would be gravy, but I don't expect it.
/cevah
What’s the purpose of using the FAQ?
The FAQ system was built to allow players and GMs to draw attention to unclear, confusing, or incorrect parts of the game rules and get official answers from the designers.
It is not intended to create official rulings for every possible corner case or combination of the rules.
Finally, most people insisting they need a designer or developer to weigh in with an official answer are in a situation where they’re disagreeing with the GM or another player and one side refuses to budge unless they get an official response from Paizo, and Paizo doesn’t want to encourage that sort of heavy-handedness.
I don't like the answer in the FAQ. What can I do?
If you have found rules that appear to override a FAQ, post about it as a reply to the thread and open up the idea for more discussion. What you found might be an exception to the rule, or it might be the evidence to overturn the ruling.
If you disagree with a ruling but don’t have any additional evidence to show that the ruling is incorrect, accept the ruling and move on (restating your points from earlier in the discussion is not “additional evidence”).
.
|
|
@cevah: the Gang Up FAQ isn't one that I necessarily like. But it would lead me to believe that the positioning & +2 bonus are all part and parcel in order to qualify for "flanking". In other words you need to satisfy the positional requirement AND the melee attack requirement in order to get to apply Sneak Attack.
I personally hate that ruling and if a Rogue in my home game wanted to go for the Snap Shot route I would allow it.
I wouldn't try to argue for this being allowed in PFS though, as they (the PDT) don't want to allow that, at least at this time.
@cevah: the Gang Up FAQ isn't one that I necessarily like. But it would lead me to believe that the positioning & +2 bonus are all part and parcel in order to qualify for "flanking". In other words you need to satisfy the positional requirement AND the melee attack requirement in order to get to apply Sneak Attack.
My point on Gang Up is not it's benefit, but rather what it sais about the situation without the feat. That is, the "Normal" line.
Also, Sneak Attack does not require melee.
Stuff
Don't forget Remy's view: Ranged threatening via [Improved] Snap Shot.
/cevah
|
|
Thank you, Robert, for telling us that your opinion of what we are doing is that it's wrong, in your own way. It really shows... personality... Though it might help not sound offensive if you quoted relevant text and then asked if this was a situation that really needed to be addressed.
To clarify, my vendetta against rules that don't make sense is in the spirit of making pathfinder a better system to role play in. I love pathfinder, though as a GM and player I feel that there are some inadequacies in the system. Most of them I don't attempt to fix, it's pointless and this game is not made to model real life exactly, but is built to have fun and be simple.
I do feel, however, that there are some *easy* changes that can be made to ease game play, increase fun, and simplfy the game. This is one of those cases. It's easy to fix because the core rules are not at fault, but rather a ambiguous interpretation of them, which is a lot easier to change than the core rule book.
I say ambiguous because no where in the rules does it say that "flanking implies melee", yet it is quoted as such, as if it was something we ought to have known. It thus becomes unclear exactly what it means. Should we take the ambiguity as purposeful wording, that flanking really does imply melee? Or do we clear the ambiguity to what we honestly feel was intended, that "the flanking bonus implies melee".
Second, it adds to simplicity. The rule book intends exactly what it says. Players wouldn't have to go online to find out that it actually means something else because of information that wasn't given.
Third, it adds to fun. It makes having a rogue with a bow in your group no longer a "dead weight" scenario. The playing who is playing the character feels like he is contributing more. And once again, I repeat that sniper rogues would not be able to flank past 5' until level 12. They won't become some damage crazy build that leaves everyone else in the dust.
Finally, the sniper rogue with a spiked gauntlet can currently get the flanking status just like a regular rogue, and get sneak attacks with his ranged attacks. By simplifying the rules just a tad bit, you longer end up with this corner case that may some day later end up in a FAQ, reducing the work of developers.
Once again, I love pathfinder. I love the developers. I know that there is no profit in FAQ's other than to keep the current player base buying the next product. I'm thankful that they spend time doing this. And as I said, there are other FAQ's I'd much rather see. But that doesn't mean we can't ask them if this is what they really intended.
@seebs: It's possible that some of the confusion comes from 4E players who then try Pathfinder. 4E changed the flanking rules (I think it refers to it as combat advantage?) to remove reference to melee attacks only, and allowed methods to take advantage of flanking at range.
Personally, I like that system (combat advantage, not 4E in general) better.
do Bow blades or an equivilant (from 3.5) exist in pathfinder? That would allow you to threaten an adjacent target with your ranged weapon, though still not allow you to "shoot them" for flanking, but you could both threaten and stab them with your bow if you needed to...
do Bow blades or an equivilant (from 3.5) exist in pathfinder? That would allow you to threaten an adjacent target with your ranged weapon, though still not allow you to "shoot them" for flanking, but you could both threaten and stab them with your bow if you needed to...
There is the Bow-Staff.
More importantly, the Dagger has existed since 1st edition. Threatens adjacent while also a ranged weapon.
Imagine two rogue dagger wielders on either side of a monster. Everyone would say they flank and get a flanking bonus and sneak attacks. Yet if they throw the dagger at the monster they somehow loose flanking according to some. They did not change position. They did not change weapons. If they loose flanking, it is because of the manner of attack only. Yet under the rules for flanking, there is a test you can apply to see if a character is flanking, and it does not mention the manner of attack. RAI is probably melee only, but RAW does not say so IMO. Hence the requests to FAQ on the second page (Link and Link).
/cevah
I don't mean to beat a dead horse/sneak attack a peasant, however I noticed that no one brought up where Flanking came from; it does shed some light on the whole 'melee only' aspect.
Flanking was created by WotC for the MtG card game, it instills a -2 (-1/-1 in card game terms) penalty for creatures that block another creature, i.e. get into melee with the attacker.
WotC simply carried the rule from one game to another.
The multiplier given in Table 30 applies to the amount of damage before modifiers for Strength or weapon bonuses are added. The weapon's standard damage is multiplied by the value given in Table 30. Then Strength and magical weapon bonuses are added.
Backstabbing does have limitations. First, the damage multiplier applies only to the first attack made by the thief, even if multiple attacks are possible. Once a blow is struck, the initial surprise effect is lost. Second, the thief cannot use it on every creature. The victim must be generally humanoid. Part of the skill comes from knowing just where to strike. A thief could backstab an ogre, but he wouldn't be able to do the same to a beholder. The victim must also have a definable back (which leaves out most slimes, jellies, oozes, and the like). Finally, the thief has to be able to reach a significant target area. To backstab a giant, the thief would have to be standing on a ledge or window balcony. Backstabbing him in the ankle just isn't going to be as effective.
I don't have the 1st ed text handy, but it was essentially the same. In 3.0, WotC got rid of facing which made Backstab go away. They replaced it with Sneak Attack.
While MTG gives -1/-1 when flanking, and by adding the two numbers you get -2, it was at least a dozen years later that the sneak attack rules were made. There are many things that apply a +2 or -2. As D&D flanking is just one way of getting +2 in combat, and not a -2 to the opponent, I think it more likely coincidence of terminology.
/cevah