|
Why don't ranged weapon users -normally- flank? Because they don't threaten. When that FAQ was written, there was no circumstance where a ranged weapon could threaten, so using all encompassing language (all ranged attacks) was correct then, but not now. The FAQ is outdated and doesn't take into consideration snap shot.
If a character with snap shot can be considered flanking while threatening with only his ranged weapon, then the gang-up feat needs to be revisited.
Disprove the first part of that, without the FAQ. Can you see why the FAQ is inconsistent?
@Fret
I apologize for putting words into your mouth, I misunderstood you.
However, I think you've misunderstood my position as well. I don't think ranged attacks normally threaten, but only with the snap shot feat.
Ah, no worries. I do actually think the Snap Shot issue is a legitimate question. I'm on the fence on how that might actually come out. Could be interesting.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't ranged weapon users -normally- flank? Because they don't threaten.
That's not the reason! The reason is because flanking involves attacking with a melee weapon. That's what flanking says in the first line.
If the attacker was required to threaten, upon which your argument relies, then an untrained unarmed strike couldn't flank.
But it can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't ranged weapon users -normally- flank? Because they don't threaten.
Incorrect. You do not have to threaten to flank. You have to have someone opposite your opponent threatening that opponent AND you have to be making a melee attack in order to flank.
Two possibilities that jump out to gain flanking w/out retroactively provide it jump out at me...regular unarmed strike (without IUS) or a whip.
Threatening your opponent is NOT needed to flank, so Snap Shot and other ways to threaten with a range weapon change NOTHING.
|
|
Why don't ranged weapon users -normally- flank? Because they don't threaten.That's not the reason! The reason is because flanking involves attacking with a melee weapon. That's what flanking says in the first line.
If the attacker was required to threaten, upon which your argument relies, then an untrained unarmed strike couldn't flank.
But it can.
I'll be clearer:
Why can't ranged weapon users -normally- be flanking? Because they don't threaten.
I'm not really sure if weapons that don't threaten should be allowed to receive the flanking bonus though. "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 could also take this phrase to mean "another threatening character". So, should those untrained unarmed strikes really get the flanking bonus?
|
|
To be clear, here's the flanking rules section quote (surprised the entire thing hasn't been quoted yet):
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.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.
Bolding mine.
These are the requirements to "provide flanking", which I reason is the same thing as "flank". If you are providing flanking, you are flanking the opponent. Sneak Attack requires that you flank the opponent, nothing more.
To be clear, here's the flanking rules section quote (surprised the entire thing hasn't been quoted yet):
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.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.
Bolding mine.
These are the requirements to "provide flanking", which I reason is the same thing as "flank". If you are providing flanking, you are flanking the opponent. Sneak Attack requires that you flank the opponent, nothing more.
It was quoted and dissected earlier in the thread.
And you said others were broadening the idea of something...wow.
It's obvious we read these sections VERY differently, and as such, I am bowing out.
|
|
To be clear, here's the flanking rules section quote (surprised the entire thing hasn't been quoted yet):
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.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.
Bolding mine.
These are the requirements to "provide flanking", which I reason is the same thing as "flank". If you are providing flanking, you are flanking the opponent. Sneak Attack requires that you flank the opponent, nothing more.
I wanted to quote the entire section myself, but I'll simply reply to your post which includes it.
The entire section is about one thing, but that one thing has two components: the attacker, and an ally. The first paragraph is what flanking is, the rest is just clarifying the details.
For the attacker, all that's required of him is that he makes a melee attack. This is not detailed in the clarifying paragraphs, because it doesn't need explaining!
For the ally, what's needed is both positioning (in relation to attacker and target) and threatening. The threatening part doesn't need explanation either (in the CRB), but the positioning part can get complex when it comes to creatures of different sizes; hence the need for the extra paragraphs.
Special abilities and feats may (or may not) change one or more of these things. The Gang Up feat changes only the positioning, not the threatening or the melee attack requirements.
Sneak Attack is irrelevant to the flanking ally, so positioning/flanking of an ally with Sneak Attack is also irrelevant. But Sneak Attack is crucial to the flanking attacker, so the requirements that apply to the attacker still apply to an attacker using Sneak Attack. And the only requirement for the attacker (apart from an ally who fulfills his requirements) is that he makes a melee attack.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
These are the requirements to "provide flanking", which I reason is the same thing as "flank". If you are providing flanking, you are flanking the opponent. Sneak Attack requires that you flank the opponent, nothing more.
Again, you are dissecting the rules to be permissive of your desired outcome.
You can't gain the benefit of flanking (and by that Sneak Attack) if you are not able to make a flanked melee attack.
I'll admit you can parse the rules the way you like, but you can also parse the rules the way I suggest and the FAQ is written to answer the question. Will you admit there are two RAWs?
|
|
These are the requirements to "provide flanking", which I reason is the same thing as "flank". If you are providing flanking, you are flanking the opponent. Sneak Attack requires that you flank the opponent, nothing more.Again, you are dissecting the rules to be permissive of your desired outcome.
You can't gain the benefit of flanking (and by that Sneak Attack) if you are not able to make a flanked melee attack.
I'll admit you can parse the rules the way you like, but you can also parse the rules the way I suggest and the FAQ is written to answer the question. Will you admit there are two RAWs?
Have I ever said that there was only one RAW? I think that there's always different interpretations of the RAW, and I am merely representing one of them.
I think we've switched places James, in the courageous property thread I was with the majority (IMO) and you the minority.
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 see either many statements making one point, or one statement. I don't see two statements, so I don't understand what that reference is about.
I intended no slight against Jason Bulmahn, rather merely stating that he is mortal, and is dealing with something quite complex.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
This paragraph makes a distinction between flanking bonus and flanking. They are not the same thing. That is why there are TWO paragraphs explaining what they are. One provides a combat bonus on the attack roll. The other defines the condition, which is relevant for sneak attack. They are not the same thing.
/cevah
=====================
FAQ Request #2CRB 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?
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")
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.This paragraph makes a distinction between flanking bonus and flanking. They are not the same thing. That is why there are TWO paragraphs explaining what they are. One provides a combat bonus on the attack roll. The other defines the condition, which is relevant for sneak attack. They are not the same thing.
Without that line some GM could assert that Large sized guys can never be flanking because not every square is in flanking position.
It doesn't separate the two, you are either flanking or not flanking and if flanking and making a melee attack you get the flanking bonus and the permission to Sneak Attack.
These are the requirements to "provide flanking", which I reason is the same thing as "flank". If you are providing flanking, you are flanking the opponent. Sneak Attack requires that you flank the opponent, nothing more.Again, you are dissecting the rules to be permissive of your desired outcome.
You can't gain the benefit of flanking (and by that Sneak Attack) if you are not able to make a flanked melee attack.
I'll admit you can parse the rules the way you like, but you can also parse the rules the way I suggest and the FAQ is written to answer the question. Will you admit there are two RAWs?
There are more than two. Haha.
The CRB isn't written in precise technical language, or lawyer-ese. Some of it is moderately formal, but much of it is informal everyday language... which unfortunately isn't precise enough to have only one RAW. Unless clarified... and, if the clarification is the same everyday language, can still have multiple interpretations.
Personally, when I encounter multiple possible readings, I check other official references for comparisons, I look into the way each interpretation interacts with other rules, other abilities and get a feel for the impact each interpretation would have on the game, and whether or not any interpretation is even compatible with other elements of the game.
It is from that process that I determine which RAW I believe is the correct one. Until clarified.
If I still cannot decide which is the correct RAW interpretation, I take a step beyond RAW into RAI, or even to 'what makes sense, realistically'. If I still am absent an answer, I then default to 'whatever everyone is doing', or I just make something up or pick randomly... It is exceedingly rare that it gets that far into the chain.
But, for the topic at hand... I never read it as Flanking=melee attack. That reading seems counter intuitive, and clunky, and requires that we ignore parts of the RAW. Is it a RAW reading? Sure, close enough to one to be valid and understandable.
But... what eats at me about that interpretation is that the phrasing is all wrong in the CRB then. There are infinitely easier ways to say how flanking functions if it is indeed true that flanking is a melee attack.
That is why I just don't buy it. Aside from it being counterintuitive, aside from it being a clunky rule if interpreted that way, it just isn't worded to suggest that it is true at all. Beyond that, the realm of impact is almost exclusively for sneak attack... and honestly there is very little chance that allowing sneak attack more flexibility could become an issue, as rogue isn't remotely a combat powerhouse to begin with.
So, for my reading of the flanking rules (flanking = positional condition) I see it as;
Pro: Is an interpretation of RAW that is valid.
Pro: More streamlined rule with this interpretation vs others.
Pro: Intuitive rule with this interpretation. (Internally consistent)
Pro: Positive game impact.
Pro: Doesn't ignore any section of rules.
Pro: Realistic.
Con: Many do it differently.
In about that order of importance.
Is the flanking = melee a valid interpretation? Yes. Here is the list for how I view that interpretation;
Pro: Is an interpretation of RAW that is valid.
Pro: Many do it this way.
Con: Clunky to implement interpretation, poorly interacts with other rules/abilities etc.
Con: Counterintuitive. (Not internally consistent)
Con: Ignores some of the rules text.
Con: Negative game impact.
Con: Unrealistic.
So it is no surprise why I feel that “Flanking = positional condition” is the correct RAW.
Without that line some GM could assert that Large sized guys can never be flanking because not every square is in flanking position.
It doesn't separate the two, you are either flanking or not flanking and if flanking and making a melee attack you get the flanking bonus and the permission to Sneak Attack.
I don't even understand what you just said. (You just separated the two while claiming they are not separate??)
Compare:
It doesn't separate the two.
If you have both flanking and melee attack you get sneak attack.
They are absolutely being separated, and are separate concepts, otherwise there wouldn't be the need to have two different words combined with an "and".
If the language was something to the effect of...
Flanking Attack
If your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner, any melee attack you make is considered a flanking attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus on this attack.When in doubt about whether two characters qualify for a flanking attack, trace an imaginary line between the two characters' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked and the attackers’ melee attacks can qualify as flanking attacks.
Exception: If a flanker(someone making a flanking attack) takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for qualifying for a flanking attack.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker qualify for flanking attacks.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't make a flanking attack, or help someone qualify for one.
... then yeah, they'd be pretty much synonymous.
If you flanking = melee attack, then the wording would be more like that above. It isn't perfect, I cranked it out quickly... lol. But that should illustrate the difference in language one would expect if flanking only meant "Making a melee attack while your target is threatened from behind".
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If you flanking = melee attack, then the wording would be more like that above.
You are parsing the language in a way most people do not parse and doing so in a very pedantic way. They are not written to be read this way. They are written in a more natural language way. Sort of like you might explain things in person.
You can't have them both ways. I've noticed in my own writing, when I'm very precise and clear when explaining how to do something my staff often has trouble following the directions. When I'm more loose, I get better results. You are looking at loose rules and wishing they were more precise.