| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
What happens if a larger creature tries to flank. Still no language changing base conditions required.
This explicitly demonstrates that flanking and flanking bonus are separate things. So when you say:
The "question" is to whether the second paragraph overrides the condition provided in the first paragraph of the section. There's nothing to imply it should, but nothing to flat out state you can't flank at range.
There is something that more than implies the second paragraph is a rule for flanking. EDIT: And the first sentence is a rule for flanking bonus.
What muddies the waters is the Gang Up FAQ. And as Remy already pointed out the FAQ clarifies that so long as two of your allies threaten an opponent you count as flanking towards them. It says that in the first sentence. You count as flanking.
Where everyone is getting caught up is the use of the word benefit in the second sentence.
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.
There are two ways to read that use of benefit. The first is reading it as them saying that ranged attacks never benefit from flanking(specifically) so this feat doesn't change that. The second is a much more broad reading reads that ranged attacks can't benefit from this feat, and Sneak Attacks are a benefit so they don't work with this either.
Everyone cherry picks that FAQ ruling to read how they want it to read, but it should be clear that because the subject of the feat and FAQ is flanking. Because of that I read it to say because ranged attacks don't normally benefit from flanking, ranged attacks won't benefit from flanking with this feat.
Sneak Attacks aren't "normal".
Ssyvan... you're not making any sense at all...
Flanking and Flanking bonus are not separate - they always come together. *Both* are benefits. The first sentence you quote is almost a tautology. "You get a flanking bonus when you count as flanking" - duh. The only thing it's pointing out is that you can choose one of your squares if you're bigger than medium. It will never say, "This is when you *don't* get a flanking bonus while you're flanking".
From what you're trying to say, Gang Up *would* allow you to sneak attack, when the FAQ makes it exceptionally clear that you can't, because "flanking specifically refers to melee attacks". Both readings you listed would prevent any flanking with ranged.
How is this thread still running???
The first sentence you quote is almost a tautology. "You get a flanking bonus when you count as flanking"
The first sentence I quote is not a tautology
If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
The if makes that clear.
if flanking THEN: flanking bonus.
From what you're trying to say, Gang Up *would* allow you to sneak attack, when the FAQ makes it exceptionally clear that you can't, because "flanking specifically refers to melee attacks". Both readings you listed would prevent any flanking with ranged.
You're cherry picking the FAQ. It doesn't explicitly say that at all. It *can* say that in the context of flanking ranged attacks don't normally benefit. It can also read the way you're reading it. But, that is taking what it says in a very broad sense.
Also, the Gang Up FAQ says NOTHING about sneak attack. Rogues and Sneak Attacks are never mentioned. So the Gang Up FAQ most certainly doesn't:
Gang Up *would* allow you to sneak attack, when the FAQ makes it exceptionally clear that you can't
As an aside I still think RAI is clear and that you shouldn't be able to sneak attack with a ranged attack using the Flanking rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flanking is positional. "You cannot flank with a ranged weapon" is gibberish.
The FAQ doesn't say that, either. Because the FAQ isn't gibberish.
How is that gibberish? Pretty sure it's a perfectly understandable statement. You may not agree with it, but it's not gibberish. In fact, it's founded in the ordinary Flanking language and the Gang Up FAQ.
Flanking is positional, we agree on that. We do not agree that it is only positional, but it is positional.
The only aspect of Flanking that the Gang Up feat changes is the relative positions necessary to obtain "Flanking". You must agree with this, particularly because you think that Flanking is only positional.
So, if the FAQ says, explicitly, "ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat", this can only be understood to mean that ranged attacks do not benefit from the changes the Gang Up feat makes to Flanking positional requirements.
As a result, your position must now be, if you insist on Flanking being applicable to ranged weapons, that ranged weapons can benefit from Flanking but that ranged weapons cannot benefit from the greater number of Flanking opportunities provided by Gang Up. This makes no sense though. If Flanking is only positional, and ranged attacks can benefit from Flanking, why can't ranged attacks benefit from the increased opportunities to Flank provided by Gang Up? This only makes sense if Flanking itself is not typically available to ranged attacks.
It is utterly nonsensical to argue that ranged attacks can benefit from Flanking but they cannot benefit from Gang Up which only alters the positional aspects of Flanking. The FAQ explicitly tells us that ranged attacks do not benefit from Gang Up. Ergo, ranged attacks do not benefit from Flanking (even if you refuse to accept the FAQ's other clear statement that Flanking specifically refers to melee attacks).
Flanking is positional. "You cannot flank with a ranged weapon" is gibberish.
The FAQ doesn't say that, either. Because the FAQ isn't gibberish.
How is that gibberish? Pretty sure it's a perfectly understandable statement. You may not agree with it, but it's not gibberish. In fact, it's founded in the ordinary Flanking language and the Gang Up FAQ.
Flanking is positional, we agree on that. We do not agree that it is only positional, but it is positional.
The only aspect of Flanking that the Gang Up feat changes is the relative positions necessary to obtain "Flanking". You must agree with this, particularly because you think that Flanking is only positional.
So, if the FAQ says, explicitly, "ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat", this can only be understood to mean that ranged attacks do not benefit from the changes the Gang Up feat makes to Flanking positional requirements.
As a result, your position must now be, if you insist on Flanking being applicable to ranged weapons, that ranged weapons can benefit from Flanking but that ranged weapons cannot benefit from the greater number of Flanking opportunities provided by Gang Up. This makes no sense though. If Flanking is only positional, and ranged attacks can benefit from Flanking, why can't ranged attacks benefit from the increased opportunities to Flank provided by Gang Up? This only makes sense if Flanking itself is not typically available to ranged attacks.
It is utterly nonsensical to argue that ranged attacks can benefit from Flanking but they cannot benefit from Gang Up which only alters the positional aspects of Flanking. The FAQ explicitly tells us that ranged attacks do not benefit from Gang Up. Ergo, ranged attacks do not benefit from Flanking (even if you refuse to accept the FAQ's other clear statement that Flanking specifically refers to melee attacks).
Read what I said above. You're taking benefit to mean that Sneak Attack is a benefit, which is a really broad and out of context reading of what they said. Sneak attack isn't mentioned in the FAQ at all. What is mentioned is flanking, and flanking has a benefit. Normally ranged attacks don't benefit from flanking, so what they could be saying is that they still don't benefit from flanking. Note that they do say you are still considered flanking in the first sentence. You count as flanking. It is very clear on that point.
Please tell me specifically which of these steps is wrong, and why? This is how I parse the rules, and it seems straightforward. Please be specific, I want to understand why it is being said this doesn't work.
Two of your buddies threaten an Ogre. You have Gang Up. You have Sneak Attack and are within 30ft, and about to shoot the Ogre.
The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent.Are you flanking? Yes. Why? Because two of your allies threaten the Ogre. That is the listed requirement to count as flanking, and the requirement is met. (And while flanking, any melee attack you make gets a handy +2 bonus to hit the target)
Ignoring everything else, this is where you are making the mistake. The relevant circumstance to your string of questions is that your rogue is using a ranged weapon.
If your attack is to be made with a ranged weapon, then you are not flanking.
Citation:
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)
Seriously, this is literally the situation addressed by the FAQ. "Can I flank with a ranged weapon if I have the Gang Up feat?" That is the exact question asked proposed by your scenario. The FAQ emphatically and unequivocally says no.
If your argument is that the FAQ was decided incorrectly, fine. But that's not the conversation we're having. You're trying to argue that the FAQ does not address literally the exact situation it explicitly addresses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Read what I said above. You're taking benefit to mean that Sneak Attack is a benefit, which is a really broad and out of context reading of what they said. Sneak attack isn't mentioned in the FAQ at all. What is mentioned is flanking, and flanking has a benefit. Normally ranged attacks don't benefit from flanking, so what they could be saying is that they still don't benefit from flanking. Note that they do say you are still considered flanking in the first sentence. You count as flanking. It is very clear on that point.
Then what does Gang Up provide as a benefit if it is not to count as flanking in more diverse situations than normal? That is the only benefit provided by the feat. The FAQ says you do not benefit from the feat. Ergo, you do not benefit from the extra opportunities to flank provided by the feat. That is the only logical interpretation.
Is there some other benefit provided by the Gang Up feat that I am missing here?
Sneak Attack is not a benefit of the Gang Up feat. Being able to Sneak Attack is a benefit provided by being able to Flank. Flanking in more situations is explicitly the benefit provided by the Gang Up feat. Ranged attacks not benefiting from those extra Flanking opportunities is what denies the result of being denied extra opportunities to Sneak Attack.
The second sentence of the FAQ clarifies the context of the first. Flanking refers to melee attacks. So the first sentence only applies to position during melee attacks.
If your attack is to be made with a ranged weapon, then you are not flanking.
Gang Up 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)
Seriously, this is literally the situation addressed by the FAQ. "Can I flank with a ranged weapon if I have the Gang Up feat?" That is the exact question asked proposed by your scenario. The FAQ emphatically and unequivocally says no.
The second sentence doesn't say that you're not flanking. It only says you don't benefit from flanking. The first sentence is the only sentence that deals with whether or not you're flanking. Ergo, you're flanking with a ranged weapon.
Then what does Gang Up provide as a benefit if it is not to count as flanking in more diverse situations than normal? That is the only benefit provided by the feat. The FAQ says you do not benefit from the feat. Ergo, you do not benefit from the extra opportunities to flank provided by the feat. That is the only logical interpretation.
The FAQ doesn't say that. It says ranged attacks don't benefit from flanking. The distinction is important because sneak attack isn't a component of ranged attacks. It is a class ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The second sentence doesn't say that you're not flanking. It only says you don't benefit from flanking. The first sentence is the only sentence that deals with whether or not you're flanking. Ergo, you're flanking with a ranged weapon.If your attack is to be made with a ranged weapon, then you are not flanking.
Gang Up 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)
Seriously, this is literally the situation addressed by the FAQ. "Can I flank with a ranged weapon if I have the Gang Up feat?" That is the exact question asked proposed by your scenario. The FAQ emphatically and unequivocally says no.
Umm...the FAQ doesn't say that you don't benefit from flanking. It says you don't benefit from the feat.
The benefit of the feat in question is:
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.
The only benefit of the feat is that you are considered to be flanking regardless of the normal positioning requirement. Ergo, since you don't get the benefit of this feat with a ranged attack, you are NOT considered flanking with the ranged attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The second sentence doesn't say that you're not flanking. It only says you don't benefit from flanking. The first sentence is the only sentence that deals with whether or not you're flanking. Ergo, you're flanking with a ranged weapon.If your attack is to be made with a ranged weapon, then you are not flanking.
Gang Up 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)
Seriously, this is literally the situation addressed by the FAQ. "Can I flank with a ranged weapon if I have the Gang Up feat?" That is the exact question asked proposed by your scenario. The FAQ emphatically and unequivocally says no.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that what you say is true (and I do not believe that it is), getting to Sneak Attack is a benefit of Flanking in this instance. As you've said, you do not benefit from Flanking using this feat while making a ranged attack. Thus, you still don't get Sneak Attack.
As for the basic argument that you're still Flanking, that's the basis of this entire discussion. The way the FAQ reads and the way people who share my interpretation read it, Flanking is not solely a positional issue. Flanking has two components (which has been gone over and over) - position and a relevant attack. Your position is that Flanking has only one component (position).
The benefit of this feat is to allow you to count as Flanking if two of your allies threaten the same bad guy. We know this is the benefit of this feat because feat entries literally use the word "benefit" when telling us what they provide.
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.
So the benefit of the Gang Up feat is to allow you to consider yourself to be flanking in situations where you ordinarily would not be able to. This FAQ says you do not benefit from the feat. That means you don't gain the bonus or rules exception provided by the benefit section of the feat. As was just shown, the benefit section of the feat is the very thing you are relying on to say that now you are considered Flanking with a ranged attack. So your argument is that while the FAQ says ranged attacks do not get to benefit from the Gang Up feat, ranged attacks still get to use the benefit section of the Gang Up feat, since that section is the only reason why you could conceivably be considered Flanking with your proposed ranged attack. So you are benefiting from something you're explicitly told you cannot benefit from.
EDIT: This last bit was ninja'd by Sniggevert.
The second sentence doesn't say that you're not flanking. It only says you don't benefit from flanking. The first sentence is the only sentence that deals with whether or not you're flanking. Ergo, you're flanking with a ranged weapon.If your attack is to be made with a ranged weapon, then you are not flanking.
Gang Up 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)
Seriously, this is literally the situation addressed by the FAQ. "Can I flank with a ranged weapon if I have the Gang Up feat?" That is the exact question asked proposed by your scenario. The FAQ emphatically and unequivocally says no.Umm...the FAQ doesn't say that you don't benefit from flanking. It says you don't benefit from the feat.
The benefit of the feat in question is:
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.The only benefit of the feat is that you are considered to be flanking regardless of the normal positioning requirement. Ergo, since you don't get the benefit of this feat with a ranged attack, you are NOT considered flanking with the ranged attack.
Thank god, sanity restored. I'm sorry everyone, I was wrong. EDIT: I'm not being sarcastic.
No worries. Been there!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lost my edit ability on the last post so I had to start a new one. Anyways, thanks Sniggevert and fretgod99 for pointing out that benefit is language used in feat entries. I'm sorry I was so thickheaded up until you guys pointed that out, and I want to say thanks for sticking it out with me until this point.
=)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So, if the FAQ says, explicitly, "ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat", this can only be understood to mean that ranged attacks do not benefit from the changes the Gang Up feat makes to Flanking positional requirements.
+1 well said
Thank god, sanity restored. I'm sorry everyone, I was wrong.
Thanks, but this still leaves the discussion of a rogue with legal flanking from position with a melee wanting to use a ranged attack (spell say) to make Sneak Attack. He would still be unable to apply Sneak Attack damage dice if he makes a ranged attack instead of a melee attack.
So, if the FAQ says, explicitly, "ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat", this can only be understood to mean that ranged attacks do not benefit from the changes the Gang Up feat makes to Flanking positional requirements.+1 well said
Thank god, sanity restored. I'm sorry everyone, I was wrong.Thanks, but this still leaves the discussion of a rogue with legal flanking from position with a melee wanting to use a ranged attack (spell say) to make Sneak Attack. He would still be unable to apply Sneak Attack damage dice if he makes a ranged attack instead of a melee attack.
Flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, so even though you have the option for a melee attack you don't get the sneak attack damage.
That said the rules don't explicitly cover that scenario and it's an edge case for sure. I think that, since flanking is supposed to represent divided attention and you're clearly still a threat to the opponent, this is a prime candidate for a house rule allowing sneak attack.
Thanks, but this still leaves the discussion of a rogue with legal flanking from position with a melee wanting to use a ranged attack (spell say) to make Sneak Attack. He would still be unable to apply Sneak Attack damage dice if he makes a ranged attack instead of a melee attack.
The question is really whether what is necessary is threatening, as opposed to making an actual melee attack. If you threaten with a melee weapon, then attacking with a ranged attack at the same time might qualify if what we're ultimately worried about is threatening. Also, that would mean the Snap Shot chain qualifies. I can see there being an argument behind moving it in that direction.
But, as it stands, what is required is an actual melee attack. It's the attack that is relevant pursuant to the language, so ranged attacks still don't benefit even if legally threatening by some other means. YMMV
The issue with opening up flanking to threatening though is that likely opens up flanking far beyond what we're talking about here. I don't think there's much question that you can threaten with an improvised weapon. Can you use your bow as an improvised melee weapon? Can you use your bow as an improvised melee weapon to threaten when you're going to be making your ranged attack with that bow? What if you're using daggers (meaning you can throw them)? What are the limits of being able to threaten? Can a wizard use his/her spellbook as an improvised weapon? Etc.
While I think there is room for a good, reasonable houserule as Ssyvan mentioned, I'm willing to bet that this is one of those areas where it's more prudent to create a bright-line rule for the sake of ease of adjudication, etc. (e.g., flanking only applies to melee attacks), even if that bright-line rule does not necessarily comport with real world (or real world adjacent) application.
Except, according to the FAQ, flanking specifically refers to melee attacks.Please tell me specifically which of these steps is wrong, and why? This is how I parse the rules, and it seems straightforward. Please be specific, I want to understand why it is being said this doesn't work.
Two of your buddies threaten an Ogre. You have Gang Up. You have Sneak Attack and are within 30ft, and about to shoot the Ogre.
The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent.Are you flanking? Yes. Why? Because two of your allies threaten the Ogre. That is the listed requirement to count as flanking, and the requirement is met. (And while flanking, any melee attack you make gets a handy +2 bonus to hit the target)
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.Can your ranged attack count as a sneak attack? Well, so long as you flank your target it gets the listed extra damage. Are you flanking? Yes.
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.Are you in range? Yes.
Then your attack gets sneak attack damage.
Why bother quoting if you're going to ignore the very thing you quote?
No one is questioning whether you get a flanking bonus to your ranged attack with Gang Up - You don't. But whether you can get Sneak Attack is a different matter that the FAQ you keep quoting doesn't address.
|
No...I understand what you're saying. I completely disagree with it, and its interpretation, but I understand what has been stated in argument.I don't believe this, because it is pretty clear that the question being asked here is distinct from the question which was answered. That answer implies an answer to this one, somewhat, but strictly speaking, there's a distinction left there.Believe what you like. I understand the argument. Folks are saying that the second paragraph under flanking overrules and ignores the condition of "When making a melee attack" required by the first paragraph AND that Jason Bulmahn doesn't understand the basics of combat of Pathfinder because in researching and answering a spot on follow up feat he reiterates that flanking does in fact relate to a melee attack only. I disagree.
Flanking[This is the subsection to talk about flanking and what it means.
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.Statement of what flanking means in the game. Condition: making a melee attack. Followed by granted bonus and positioning required.
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.
Clarification and explanation of second half of first sentence describing more detailed analysis of how to determine required positioning. No language describing or changing base condition required.
What happens if a larger creature tries to flank. Still no language...
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
That about sum it up?
Perfectly. : )
|
Another point to bring up is that the gang up feat assumes you can't threaten an opponent with a ranged weapon. Gang up came out with the APG, whereas Snap Shot, the ability we claim that allows you to be considered flanking, came out with ultimate combat.
Naturally, gang up was never meant to allow non-threatening weapons to provide flanking. But with snap shot, I believe this falls very much into the intent of someone providing flanking (IE attention is divided).
Why bother quoting if you're going to ignore the very thing you quote?
No one is questioning whether you get a flanking bonus to your ranged attack with Gang Up - You don't. But whether you can get Sneak Attack is a different matter that the FAQ you keep quoting doesn't address.
The FAQ states that ranged attacks don't flank. It doesn't say that ranged attacks don't get the flanking bonus.
The only real question, as I've noted as well as others (including Frodo just above) is what impact the Snap Shot chain has on the ability to flank with ranged attacks. That's really the only question left to definitively answer (at least insofar as intent is concerned, the plain language is that even the Snap Shot chain wouldn't allow flanking - there's a good argument for intent, though).
Another point to bring up is that the gang up feat assumes you can't threaten an opponent with a ranged weapon. Gang up came out with the APG, whereas Snap Shot, the ability we claim that allows you to be considered flanking, came out with ultimate combat.
Naturally, gang up was never meant to allow non-threatening weapons to provide flanking. But with snap shot, I believe this falls very much into the intent of someone providing flanking (IE attention is divided).
My initial scenario that started this whole mess was CRB only. Dual wielding daggers. You threaten with one and throw the other.
I think what's really important here is that the rules are giving a giant middle finger to common sense.
So you're telling me that enemy over there is flanked by my two buddies, and I have this here shortbow and a bunch of Sneak Attack dice and the Gang Up feat.
And you want me to believe my enemy isn't distracted enough for me to get SA damage?
Shenanigans.
(Hell, it shouldn't even take a feat! You should just get SA damage against a flanked enemy [melee or ranged, doesn't matter], whether you're partaking in the flanking or not.)
Another point to bring up is that the gang up feat assumes you can't threaten an opponent with a ranged weapon. Gang up came out with the APG, whereas Snap Shot, the ability we claim that allows you to be considered flanking, came out with ultimate combat.
Naturally, gang up was never meant to allow non-threatening weapons to provide flanking. But with snap shot, I believe this falls very much into the intent of someone providing flanking (IE attention is divided).
Here's the thing...the person making the attack doesn't even have to threaten the target to begin with...just make a melee attack. They won't provide reciprocal flanking to the person on the other side, but that's a different issue. Snap shot can let someone on the other side of a threatened target get the benefits of flanking (bonus to hit, sneak attack, etc.), but the ranged shooter will not get them in return.
I can Shenanigans if you did get that Sneak Attack dice.And you want me to believe my enemy isn't distracted enough for me to get SA damage?
Shenanigans.
Based on what? Sacred Cows? No thanks. :)
(Hell, it shouldn't even take a feat! You should just get SA damage against a flanked enemy [melee or ranged, doesn't matter], whether you're partaking in the flanking or not.)
Yes - that is why you simply house rule that Flanked is a condition. When a person is flanked (two attackers in correct position able to threaten the target), the target becomes Flanked. Flanked condition = Attackers receive a +2 bonus to hit you and are eligible to be sneak attacked.
Problem solved.
We did this is my group a while back - everyone likes it.
Based on what? Sacred Cows? No thanks. :)I can Shenanigans if you did get that Sneak Attack dice.And you want me to believe my enemy isn't distracted enough for me to get SA damage?
Shenanigans.
Based on the fact that that's what the rules actually say.
You're making a realism argument. And while I can appreciate the realism argument, and while the realism argument at times can help explain how the rules function, sometimes the rules are intended to function a specific way despite belying how the situation might more realistically turn out.
Why do you have to be on the precisely opposite side of an enemy to get a flanking bonus? Shouldn't you get a bonus to attack if an enemy is being engaged by an ally, whether on the opposite side or not? It's still distracting even if the other person isn't directly behind them. Why don't I get a bigger bonus based on an increased number of allies threatening my adversary? More attackers means more distractions. Etc.
While all of that is true, the rules limit how flanking applies. If you're ok with limits in some instances,you can't really complain about the arbitrariness of the rules. After all, the line you'd be drawing would be equally arbitrary. That you'd draw it elsewhere doesn't make it any less arbitrary or necessarily any more acceptable. That being the case, your realism argument fails on its face.
You don't flank and don't get the flanking bonus because the rules are designed specifically to say that you don't qualify for them. If you don't like how that plays out, your group is certainly free to house rule things differently. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Those weird firearms with melee weapons attached to them?Pistol Cane Dagger?
What they need to stat, is the Duckfoot Pistol. [/QUOTE
Check out http://paizo.com/products/btpy8tbn?Super-Genius-Presents-A-Brace-of-Pistols
This explicitly demonstrates that flanking and flanking bonus are separate things.Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
What happens if a larger creature tries to flank. Still no language changing base conditions required.
+1
Since each square of a larger creature is separately evaluated for "flanking", some may satisfy the criteria and some may not. Since the large creature can have squares where it is not flanking, yet still get a flanking bonus, clearly flanking and flanking bonus are NOT the same thing.The "question" is to whether the second paragraph overrides the condition provided in the first paragraph of the section. There's nothing to imply it should, but nothing to flat out state you can't flank at range.
Since there are two separate things, is it not surprising each has its own paragraph? Each with the criteria listed to satisfy the thing.
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.
There are several parts to this sentence:
1) The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included2) and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks
3) ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat.
Point (1) is self obvious.
Point (2) is a reference to another section of the rules, and not actually making a change to the rules.
Point (3) is a clear "no" to the question answered by the FAQ.
I disagree with what point (2) states, since I do NOT see the rules for flanking to even require an attack, let alone a melee one.
I see point (3) as a change to the feat to make RAW closer to RAI. Such changes happen all the time in FAQ entries.
Believe what you like. I understand the argument. Folks are saying that the second paragraph under flanking overrules and ignores the condition of "When making a melee attack" required by the first paragraph AND that Jason Bulmahn doesn't understand the basics of combat of Pathfinder because in researching and answering a spot on follow up feat he reiterates that flanking does in fact relate to a melee attack only. I disagree.
Jason Bulmahn understands just fine. However, his understanding may be RAI and not RAW. He may also have just assumed the RAW did not give flanking to ranged. How easy is it to make a mistake when dealing with thousands of interacting rules? Had he double checked the RAW, he might have worded the FAQ as "Ranged attacks do not benefit from flanking." That would have stopped the issue dead. But instead, he said "ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat." That left the question wide open.
Flanking[This is the subsection to talk about flanking and what it means.
Agreed.
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.Statement of what flanking means in the game. Condition: making a melee attack. Followed by granted bonus and positioning required.
Nope. This is a statement of the flanking bonus.
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.Clarification and explanation of second half of first sentence describing more detailed analysis of how to determine required positioning. No language describing or changing base condition required.
Nope. This describes a separate thing, Flanking. It explicitly calls out the position, and unequivocally tells you if you flank or not, without any reference to attacks, melee or otherwise.
/cevah
Please tell me specifically which of these steps is wrong, and why? This is how I parse the rules, and it seems straightforward. Please be specific, I want to understand why it is being said this doesn't work.
Two of your buddies threaten an Ogre. You have Gang Up. You have Sneak Attack and are within 30ft, and about to shoot the Ogre.
The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent.Are you flanking? Yes. Why? Because two of your allies threaten the Ogre. That is the listed requirement to count as flanking, and the requirement is met. (And while flanking, any melee attack you make gets a handy +2 bonus to hit the target)Ignoring everything else, this is where you are making the mistake. The relevant circumstance to your string of questions is that your rogue is using a ranged weapon.
If your attack is to be made with a ranged weapon, then you are not flanking.
You don't even need to attack to be considered flanking. You jusr are flanking. When? "so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent".
You are flanking. Your weapon isn't flanking. Your attack isn't flanking.
You are.
People/characters/creature flank. Weapons and attacks do not flank. And people with the Gang Up feat don’t even need to be armed to flank, heck they don’t need to be anywhere near the target, or for that matter even conscious.
They simply are… flanking. Continuously and constantly, so long as two of their allies threaten a dude, they are considered flanking that dude. Sword in hand? Don’t matter. Bow? Don’t matter. Making an attack? Don’t matter. Napping? Don’t matter. Weaving a basket? Don’t matter. They simply are flanking because their feat says so.
Why is that hard to understand?
Citation:
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)
Seriously, this is literally the situation addressed by the FAQ. "Can I flank with a ranged weapon if I have the Gang Up feat?" That is the exact question asked proposed by your scenario. The FAQ emphatically and unequivocally says no.
If your argument is that the FAQ was decided incorrectly, fine. But that's not the conversation we're having. You're trying to argue that the FAQ does not address literally the exact situation it explicitly addresses.
Compare the two parts I just bolded.
The FAQ emphatically and unequivocally says that yes, you do flank. If you would actually read the very first line of the answer.
My argument is that the FAQ is absolutely correct. That people flank, based on their positions. And that by default, flanking someone gives a bonus on melee attacks. But that flanking is a state of being that doesn’t flicker into being for a brief instant mid-attack. If you are in a flanking position, you are de facto flanking.
The very first line of the FAQ answer tells us everything we need to know here. The rest of it just explains the ‘duh’ stuff. That even while flanking, and making a ranged attack, a +2 to melee doesn’t help much. But that doesn’t mean you aren’t flanking. See line 1 of the answer.
You count as flanking. You absolutely do.
And my friend, that is all you need for sneak attack.
(Hell, it shouldn't even take a feat! You should just get SA damage against a flanked enemy [melee or ranged, doesn't matter], whether you're partaking in the flanking or not.)Yes - that is why you simply house rule that Flanked is a condition. When a person is flanked (two attackers in correct position able to threaten the target), the target becomes Flanked. Flanked condition = Attackers receive a +2 bonus to hit you and are eligible to be sneak attacked.
Problem solved.
We did this is my group a while back - everyone likes it.
Huh... I'm going to suggest this to my group. I like it, quite a lot actually.
Why bother quoting if you're going to ignore the very thing you quote?
No one is questioning whether you get a flanking bonus to your ranged attack with Gang Up - You don't. But whether you can get Sneak Attack is a different matter that the FAQ you keep quoting doesn't address.
The FAQ states that ranged attacks don't flank. It doesn't say that ranged attacks don't get the flanking bonus.
The only real question, as I've noted as well as others (including Frodo just above) is what impact the Snap Shot chain has on the ability to flank with ranged attacks. That's really the only question left to definitively answer (at least insofar as intent is concerned, the plain language is that even the Snap Shot chain wouldn't allow flanking - there's a good argument for intent, though).
Here it is again...
Ranged weapons don't flank. You are right. Congratulations.
Neither do chairs, or castles, or popsicles. Unicorns can flank, rainbows cannot. Running, swimming, jumping, and attacking cannot flank. You, Bob, or I could flank.
Funny enough, if you read that FAQ though... it actually doesn't say what you think it does.
Remember: People flank. Objects and verbs don't flank. (Weapons or attacks, neither flank) You could flank. I could flank. Bob could flank. Bob's sword cannot flank. Bob's attack cannot flank. Bob flanks.
Bob's attack could potentially benefit from the fact that Bob flanks. If it is a melee attack it gets +2. And if Bob has sneak attack as a class feature all of his attacks get sneak attack damage while he flanks. Even his ranged attacks, given that his target is within 30ft.
On the other hand: That FAQ ruling also creates the issue that, if the first part is correct, then it should be the case that ranged attacks benefit from the feat, it just doesn't usually matter since a +2 to melee attacks doesn't help ranged attackers.
The ranged attacker benefits from flanking. However, the +2 flanking bonus isn't applicable to a ranged attack.
Yep.
The last line: "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."
This tells us that ranged attack mechanics are unaffected by this feat.
They are still ranged attacks. They are not eligible for the +2 bonus from the attacker flanking. They are unchanged by this feat.
But... the attacker himself is affected by the feat, and is considered flanking. He could be doing a kegstand while watching his two buddies rough up an old homeless man (rogues are mean) from 100ft away, and he'd be considered flanking the old homeless man.
So, he benefits from the feat. And his ranged attacks could benefit from his sneak attack. But his ranged attacks at no time are benefitting from Gang Up. He is. And his ranged attacks are benefitting from sneak attack. But his ranged attacks don't benefit from Gang Up. Because a ranged attack while flanking doesn't benefit the ranged attack in any way. Flanking benefits him, allowing him to use sneak attack, and sneak attack benefits his attacks.
The whole thing is pretty clean in how it functions.
|
|
On the other hand: That FAQ ruling also creates the issue that, if the first part is correct, then it should be the case that ranged attacks benefit from the feat, it just doesn't usually matter since a +2 to melee attacks doesn't help ranged attackers.The ranged attacker benefits from flanking. However, the +2 flanking bonus isn't applicable to a ranged attack.
Yep.
The last line: "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."
This tells us that ranged attack mechanics are unaffected by this feat.
They are still ranged attacks. They are not eligible for the +2 bonus from the attacker flanking. They are unchanged by this feat.
But... the attacker himself is affected by the feat, and is considered flanking. He could be doing a kegstand while watching his two buddies rough up an old homeless man (rogues are mean) from 100ft away, and he'd be considered flanking the old homeless man.
So, he benefits from the feat. And his ranged attacks could benefit from his sneak attack. But his ranged attacks at no time are benefitting from Gang Up. He is. And his ranged attacks are benefitting from sneak attack. But his ranged attacks don't benefit from Gang Up. Because a ranged attack while flanking doesn't benefit the ranged attack in any way. Flanking benefits him, allowing him to use sneak attack, and sneak attack benefits his attacks.
What a tortuous, twisted chain of statements just to turn 'no' into 'yes'!
The whole thing is pretty clean in how it functions.
Hah!
I don't understand the slavish adherence to RAW. If your group doesn't like the way something works, change it. That's the beauty of a tabletop game.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Jason Bulmahn understands just fine. However, his understanding may be RAI and not RAW. He may also have just assumed the RAW did not give flanking to ranged. How easy is it to make a mistake when dealing with thousands of interacting rules? Had he double checked the RAW, he might have worded the FAQ as "Ranged attacks do not benefit from flanking." That would have stopped the issue dead. But instead, he said "ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat." That left the question wide open.
There is not difference between the two statements, and that is a rather back handled compliment and slam against Jason combined into one.
I don't understand the slavish adherence to RAW. If your group doesn't like the way something works, change it. That's the beauty of a tabletop game.
I don't understand the slavish adherence to one true RAW where other valid interpretations are discounted rejecting any acceptance of them.
The last line: "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."
This tells us that ranged attack mechanics are unaffected by this feat.
Benefit = "You are considered to be flanking an opponent blah blah condition blah irrelevant"
So if "ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat" then:Ranged attacks do not "you are considered to be flanking an opponent".
Citation:
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)Seriously, this is literally the situation addressed by the FAQ. "Can I flank with a ranged weapon if I have the Gang Up feat?" That is the exact question asked proposed by your scenario. The FAQ emphatically and unequivocally says no.
If your argument is that the FAQ was decided incorrectly, fine. But that's not the conversation we're having. You're trying to argue that the FAQ does not address literally the exact situation it explicitly addresses.Compare the two parts I just bolded.
The FAQ emphatically and unequivocally says that yes, you do flank. If you would actually read the very first line of the answer.
My argument is that the FAQ is absolutely correct. That people flank, based on their positions. And that by default, flanking someone gives a bonus on melee attacks. But that flanking is a state of being that doesn’t flicker into being for a brief instant mid-attack. If you are in a flanking position, you are de facto flanking.
The very first line of the FAQ answer tells us everything we need to know here. The rest of it just explains the ‘duh’ stuff. That even while flanking, and making a ranged attack, a +2 to melee doesn’t help much. But that doesn’t mean you aren’t flanking. See line 1 of the answer.
You count as flanking. You absolutely do.
And my friend, that is all you need for sneak attack.
You realize that the first line of the FAQ entry is literally just a restating of the benefit line of the feat, right?
Benefit: You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent
The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent.
Your argument that the FAQ is telling us two separate things is ridiculous. The first section is not a new answer; it's a restatement of precisely what the feat does. It changes the positional requirements of flanking.
As you note, people flank (in part) based on their position. The Gang Up feat changes only the positional aspects of flanking. That is all that is changed. And yet, the FAQ explicitly states that ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat.
The only benefit provided by the feat is an alteration to the positional restrictions of flanking. That is all. Ranged attacks do not benefit from the feat. So ranged attacks do not benefit from the broadened opportunities to provide flanking because that is all the feat does.
Why would a feat allow flanking to occur more frequently, except for when done by ranged weapons, if the feat doesn't explicitly call out ranged weapons as being treated differently? It only makes sense if the basic presumption is that ranged attacks do not benefit at all from flanking. And this is precisely the angle from which the FAQ was written. We know that because the FAQ comes right out and says it.
Why bother quoting if you're going to ignore the very thing you quote?
No one is questioning whether you get a flanking bonus to your ranged attack with Gang Up - You don't. But whether you can get Sneak Attack is a different matter that the FAQ you keep quoting doesn't address.
The FAQ states that ranged attacks don't flank. It doesn't say that ranged attacks don't get the flanking bonus.
The only real question, as I've noted as well as others (including Frodo just above) is what impact the Snap Shot chain has on the ability to flank with ranged attacks. That's really the only question left to definitively answer (at least insofar as intent is concerned, the plain language is that even the Snap Shot chain wouldn't allow flanking - there's a good argument for intent, though).
Here it is again...
Ranged weapons don't flank. You are right. Congratulations.
Neither do chairs, or castles, or popsicles. Unicorns can flank, rainbows cannot. Running, swimming, jumping, and attacking cannot flank. You, Bob, or I could flank.Funny enough, if you read that FAQ though... it actually doesn't say what you think it does.
Remember: People flank. Objects and verbs don't flank. (Weapons or attacks, neither flank) You could flank. I could flank. Bob could flank. Bob's sword cannot flank. Bob's attack cannot flank. Bob flanks.
Bob's attack could potentially benefit from the fact that Bob flanks. If it is a melee attack it gets +2. And if Bob has sneak attack as a class feature all of his attacks get sneak attack damage while he flanks. Even his ranged attacks, given that his target is within 30ft.
You're right. You caught. I apologize for trying to save space and writing "ranged attacks don't flank" instead of "ranged attacks don't benefit from flanking". Mea culpa. The rest of the point remains firmly in place.
And no, Bob's ranged attacks don't benefit from flanking, whether he has the Gang Up feat or not. Ranged attacks don't benefit from flanking, which is why ranged attacks don't benefit from the Gang Up feat.
|
|
Why bother quoting if you're going to ignore the very thing you quote?
No one is questioning whether you get a flanking bonus to your ranged attack with Gang Up - You don't. But whether you can get Sneak Attack is a different matter that the FAQ you keep quoting doesn't address.
The FAQ states that ranged attacks don't flank. It doesn't say that ranged attacks don't get the flanking bonus.
The only real question, as I've noted as well as others (including Frodo just above) is what impact the Snap Shot chain has on the ability to flank with ranged attacks. That's really the only question left to definitively answer (at least insofar as intent is concerned, the plain language is that even the Snap Shot chain wouldn't allow flanking - there's a good argument for intent, though).
Here it is again...
Ranged weapons don't flank. You are right. Congratulations.
Neither do chairs, or castles, or popsicles. Unicorns can flank, rainbows cannot. Running, swimming, jumping, and attacking cannot flank. You, Bob, or I could flank.Funny enough, if you read that FAQ though... it actually doesn't say what you think it does.
Remember: People flank. Objects and verbs don't flank. (Weapons or attacks, neither flank) You could flank. I could flank. Bob could flank. Bob's sword cannot flank. Bob's attack cannot flank. Bob flanks.
Bob's attack could potentially benefit from the fact that Bob flanks. If it is a melee attack it gets +2. And if Bob has sneak attack as a class feature all of his attacks get sneak attack damage while he flanks. Even his ranged attacks, given that his target is within 30ft.
You're right. You caught. I apologize for trying to save space and writing "ranged attacks don't flank" instead of "ranged attacks don't benefit from flanking". Mea culpa. The rest of the point remains firmly in place.
And no, Bob's ranged attacks don't benefit from flanking, whether he has the Gang Up feat or not. Ranged attacks don't benefit from flanking, which is why ranged attacks don't benefit from the Gang Up feat.
They may not get the flanking bonus (a very specific term, referencing ONLY the +2 bonus) but they do get the benefits of flanking (IE sneak attack). Your broadening the word "benefit" to include things that were not intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They may not get the flanking bonus (a very specific term, referencing ONLY the +2 bonus) but they do get the benefits of flanking (IE sneak attack). Your broadening the word "benefit" to include things that were not intended.
The FAQ says that ranged attacks do not benefit from the Gang Up Feat. In other words you look at the section of the feat conveniently labeled as "Benefit" and whatever that is ranged attacks can't do it.
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.
The word bonus is not in there anywhere so it isn't talking about the flanking bonus. You are considered flanking is the benefit.
FAQ says ranged attacks do not = benefit. Benefit = considered flanking. Therefore ranged attacks do not = considered flanking. Period.
They may not get the flanking bonus (a very specific term, referencing ONLY the +2 bonus) but they do get the benefits of flanking (IE sneak attack). Your broadening the word "benefit" to include things that were not intended.
No I'm not. The only benefit relevant to the FAQ, the only one, is whether you can use the more lenient flanking qualifications provided by the Gang Up feat. That is the only benefit I am referencing.
I am using the fact that characters attacking with ranged attacks cannot make use of the Gang Up feat's broadening of the ability to flank an opponent to infer that characters attacking with ranged attacks do not ever get to flank opponents regardless of any positioning considerations at all.
I am not reading benefit any differently. I am not broadening its meaning.
But I'll ask this again: If ranged attacks can benefit from flanking ordinarily, then when the question is "Can I use the gang up feat to flank a foe with a ranged weapon" why was the response "Ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat"? Why wasn't the response "Since you can ordinarily flank a foe with a ranged weapon, you can use the Gang Up feat to flank a foe with a ranged weapon as well." That makes utterly no sense.
Your argument is that the Gang Up feat has nothing to do with flanking from range, because it's ordinarily allowed. So then why was there even a need for a FAQ at all? And if the FAQ was still needed, why doesn't it state "Of course you can flank with a ranged weapon with Gang Up. You can ordinarily flank with a ranged weapon and Gang Up just increases the circumstances when you can do it. You just don't get the +2 bonus to attack rolls, because that requires that you make a melee attack."
Either the FAQ does not mean what you argue it means or it is the worst written FAQ in history.