| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello. While there are several responses in this thread Snap Shot, Imp Snap Shot, Flanking, Sneak Attack in the Rules Questions forum from back in Sep 2012, there are no official responses from anyone at Paizo (as far as I can tell). Therefore, I am looking for official clarification of the following:
Assume my rogue (or any other class character) has Snap Shot (Feat), Improved Snap Shot, Weapon Focus (Longbow) and is within 15 feet of an enemy. My ally is on the direct opposite side of that same enemy in the adjacent square and able to perform actions. The enemy has already acted at least once within the current combat and is not under any detrimental effects otherwise.
A: Would I (rogue at 15') threaten that enemy and therefore provide flanking for my ally (who would therefore get the +2 to Hit with melee attacks)?
B: Would I gain the benefit of that enemy being flanked due to my ally threatening him from the opposite side?
C: Would I therefore be able to deal Sneak Attack damage to that enemy with a ranged longbow attack?
I already realize that because I am not using a melee attack, I would not get a bonus of +2 to Hit because of flanking (if it applies).
I would greatly appreciate if I could get an official ruling on this question from Pathfinder Society / Paizo staff, before I waste multiple sessions playing a character who I believe will be able to do one thing and then come to find out he's subpar at best.
Also, if I am unable to deal sneak attack damage using this chain of feats, is there any way that I can with my longbow?
What kinevon said. Flanking only applies to melee attacks. If you need something official, this FAQ is similar enough to apply to your question:
Er, with (A), the ally wouldn't gain a flanking bonus from the rogue who's only threatening with a ranged weapon (even with the snap shot line).
Actually he would. Flanking only cares that the target is threatened. It does not say that the target must be threatened by a melee weapon.
What kinevon said. Flanking only applies to melee attacks. If you need something official, this FAQ is similar enough to apply to your question:
I think this FAQ doesn´t count because this is before the Snap Shot feat was released. The flanking condition comes from been threaten, not from hit with a melee weapon. Melee weapons get +2 to hit when flanking, but he condition to flank is someone threaten the other side. Ranged weapons with snap shot flanks too, but whithout the +2 bonus given to melee weapons.
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.
To provide a flank: you must threaten.
To benefit from a flank: you must be making a melee attack.Snap Shot allows you to threaten, and thus provide a flank, but you are still not making a melee attack so you do not benefit from flanking. You get no +2 bonus and do not count as flanking for the purposes of feats and abilities that require flanking.
- Gauss
I agree with kinevon.
To play devil's advocate, the rules say only that you get the +2 bonus when attacking with a melee weapon.
They do not say that you only count as flanking when getting that bonus -- and in fact, the rules state that both characters are flanking the opponent:
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.
You only get the +2 bonus when you make a melee attack, but Sneak Attack doesn't care about that, only whether you "are flanking". And the rules for determining whether you are flanking only care that you threaten.
So a truly pedantic reading of the RAW would say that you can flank, and thus sneak attack, due to snap shot. Also, it would be common sense that either you are flanked by two people or are not -- saying that one person flanks while the other doesn't is a little odd!
But the most important point is that none of this was considered by the designers when writing Snap Shot or the Sneak Attack rules, and so probably shouldn't be allowed. :)
Also, if I am unable to deal sneak attack damage using this chain of feats, is there any way that I can with my longbow?
I have a ranged ninja that depends on sneak attacks, so I gave her a level of waves oracle, with the revelation to see through mist. That way I just cast obscuring mist, and shoot people from inside the cloud (effectively invisible)
Here is some more food for thought....
To play devil's advocate, the rules say only that you get the +2 bonus when attacking with a melee weapon.
They do not say that you only count as flanking when getting that bonus -- and in fact, the rules state that both characters are flanking the opponent:
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.You only get the +2 bonus when you make a melee attack, but Sneak Attack doesn't care about that, only whether you "are flanking". And the rules for determining whether you are flanking only care that you threaten.
So a truly pedantic reading of the RAW would say that you can flank, and thus sneak attack, due to snap shot. Also, it would be common sense that either you are flanked by two people or are not -- saying that one person flanks while the other doesn't is a little odd!
But the most important point is that none of this was considered by the designers when writing Snap Shot or the Sneak Attack rules, and so probably shouldn't be allowed. :)
Flanking has two benefits:
1) Attack bonus2) Sneak attack damage
Each has conditions needed to achieve.
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.
Reading it again just now, I don't see the need to actually threaten in order to flank. Please show me the RAW for the requirement to threaten, as I did not spot it. Before quoting the first paragraph, consider that you don't need to attack to be flanking. You need to threaten to get the +2 bonus. I also see a clear test to determine a flanked character. Imagine the following:
_ _ _ _ _A _ B _ C
_ _ _ _ _
There is space on either side of B, yet by the quoted test, B is still flanked. Lets say (#1) A has a whip (15' range) and C a reach weapon (10' range). Then A gets the +2 bonus but C does not. Two whips (#2) means no-one gets the bonus. Two reach weapons (#3) means both get +2 bonus. In all cases, B is flanked by melee weapons, so sneak attack should apply.
How do these condition change when the whip is replaced with Improved SnapShot & bow. I see #1 change to A not getting a bonus but C getting the +2. I see #2 as neither getting a bonus. B is still flanked, as no-one has moved. Since sneak attack does not require the attack to be a melee attack, it should still apply.
To your last line, I disagree a bit.
ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
Clearly, there is a ranged option for sneak attack, in the core rules. Did they mean only ranged from flat footed only? No text was included to say so.
As to what RAI should be? I don't know because of the corner cases of the whip being melee and ranged at the same time yet thrown weapons don't count from the exact same position while a reach weapon like a pole arm does.
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.
/cevah
I recommend faqing though I doubt we'll get a reply on this one. Hopefully I'm wrong.
I'm of the mind that you should get the SA whether you get the +2 or not, but I'm away from my books right now.