Does Sneak Attack apply to ranged attacks when you are flanking?


Rules Questions

501 to 550 of 645 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cevah wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Why you'd want to ignore RAI, I have no idea.

Because this is the Rules forum, not the Advice forum. :-)

/cevah

But the RAI are the rules. If your position is the RAW are unclear and creates confusion as to RAI, and you therefore want to clarify the RAW to better match the RAI, fine. But even then, you shouldn't really be advocating for the disingenuous interpretation of RAW, particularly when you know it's not the reading intended.


The scenario we have is:
One interpretation of RAW that allows flanking with ranged weapons, and one that does not.

One of these is supported by the guy who wrote the friggin' game.

You decide.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Flanking wrote:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus
You never get the flanking bonus when making ranged attacks, because the flanking bonus only applies to melee attacks.

Is that the case if you have a feat/class feature which gives you the ability to threaten adjacent squares with a bow?


Threatening merely allows you to provide flanking.

The verbiage would have to be "your ranged weapon is considered a melee weapon for this purpose", or no dice.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Undone wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Flanking wrote:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus
You never get the flanking bonus when making ranged attacks, because the flanking bonus only applies to melee attacks.
Is that the case if you have a feat/class feature which gives you the ability to threaten adjacent squares with a bow?

Only if the ability also makes it count as a melee attack for that purpose. I would probably give it to you, but it isn't in the rules.


The bottom line is threatening while on the opposite side of an opponent from your ally and flanking are not the same thing.

Flanking is melee and melee only. End of Story, RAW as well as RAI.


FrozenLaughs wrote:


Now say he wanted to shoot you instead of stab you:
Sneak Attack wrote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is
...
Gang Up wrote:


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

So, no. You cannot shoot someone while using Gang Up any more than you can power attack with a ranged weapon.

Now, while there is a ranged weapon version of power attack called deadly aim, there is no such corresponding feat for ranged attacks that is equivalent to Gang Up.

It does not exist.


Quintain wrote:
End of Story

You're adorable.


Sarcasm Elemental wrote:
Quintain wrote:
End of Story
You're adorable.

I get that alot :D


Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm sorry. I started reading this post when it was only 100 deep, and then slowly got up to post 250, so if this has been stated between 250 and 500 (current at time of typing) I apologize.

"Flanking" is the same thing as the bonus, not a separate condition.

Elementals for instance are "Not subject to critical hits or flanking. Does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks, such as sneak attack."

This doesn't mean that they are impossible to get on the other side of, and that no two enemies of an Elemental can draw a line through the center, yada, yada. It means you don't ever get a bonus when you are on the opposite sides of one.

If flanking was a condition only based on positioning, and separate from the bonus, then it makes combating an Elemental (or Swarm, or other creature that "Can't be flanked") VERY difficult. Heck, that would mean that an 8th level Rogue or 7th level Barbarian (or the numerous other ways to get Improved Uncanny Dodge) would put limits on where enemies could be physically located on the minimap if it was a position thing and not related to the bonus.

Improved Uncanny Dodge wrote:
A rogue of 8th level or higher can no longer be flanked.

EDIT: Flanking is melee only since that is the only way to get the bonus referred to in many other places as simply "flanking".


I'm still stuck on people insisting that flanking is defined only as a bonus applied to melee attacks that are made while flanking.

It's circular logic. Consider:

I want to make a melee attack against an enemy.
I have a friend on the opposite side of said enemy*.
I check to see if I receive the flanking bonus.
The bonus requires that I flank an enemy.
The definition of flanking an enemy is receiving the bonus.
Thus I can never receive the bonus because the criteria is having the bonus.

Now, can we apply some critical thinking skills to this?

*Also, why is flanking only a complete opposite side thing? flanking should actually encompass all 3 of the tiles opposite a player.


Flanking is never implicitly defined in the rules as a game term, either, so we must assume the given definition stands unless otherwise stated:

Flanking; (verb)

"be situated on each side of or on one side of (someone or something)."

The rules for Sneak Attacks state only that a Rogue must 'flank' the target, not receive the 'flanking bonus' specifically. This means merely being on an opposing side of your target as a friendly character. The rulebook does note that your target must be threatened and your attack cannot have a range of 0 to flank (but doesn't refer to this as the flanking bonus...).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i should mention 1 post from 1 dev does not RAI make, you need a team consensus, which can only come out of a FAQ.

that's all i'm throwing back in the ring, this thread was fun while it lasted but people seem to be arguing angrily and not factually anymore, so it's no longer even fun to defend my side, or at least people seem to argue past each other without actually attacking the point at best deflecting it in the circle of debate.

oh well. fun while it lasted.

Liberty's Edge

There have been a number of posts since I was last on here, and I don't have much time, so hopefully I'll be able to address all points with this one post.

CRB, page 197: Flanking:

"Flanking, 1st Paragraph wrote:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by [an ally] on its opposite border or opposite corner.

Flanking, 1st Paragraph

In this picture, we see both Valeros and Kyra flanking a goblin. If Valeros were to attack, he would get a +2 to his attack. Conversely, Kyra would also get a +2 to her attack. They are both equipped with weapons which threaten the target, and are both in the proper position in relation to one another. Additionally, when each attacks, they would be attacking with a melee weapon.

"Flanking, 4th Paragraph wrote:
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Flanking, 4th Paragraph

Consider if Valeros were equipped with a longbow instead. In this case, the goblin is not flanked. Although the goblin does have two enemies directly across from one another, one is equipped with a weapon which does not threaten it.

Valeros does not provide flanking for Kyra's attack because Valeros isn't equipped with a weapon which threatens the goblin.

Conversely, while Kyra is equipped with a weapon that threatens the goblin and is in a location which would normally provide flanking, she does not because Valeros is not attacking with a melee weapon.

Which leads us to:

Flanking, 2nd Paragraph wrote:
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attacker's centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Flanking, 2nd Paragraph, Example 1

Flanking, 2nd Paragraph, Example 2

A number of people have quoted this paragraph as proof that just because two characters are on opposite sides of a target from one another, this means that they are "flanking". This is not true.

The purpose of this paragraph is so that in those cases in which the position of the two characters isn't precisely opposite from one another, they would still be considered flanking the target for their respective attacks (or providing flanking for the other character's attack).

In the first example, Valeros and Kyra are attacking an ogre. The two are considered to be flanking the ogre because although they are not directly opposite from one another, the 2nd paragraph tells us to draw a line from the center of both squares. Since this line passes through opposite borders, they are flanking.

In the second example, Valeros is equipped with a longspear. Although offset from Kyra, they are still flanking because the line drawn between the center of their squares passes through the opposite borders (including the corner of that border).

In any case, there is no relief from the requirement that a) the attacker must make a melee attack, and b) the ally must threaten the target and be in a legal position in relation to the attacker. As stated previously regarding the 4th Paragraph, just because they are opposite each other (or crossing opposite borders), doesn't mean that they are flanking.

And for the sake of completion:

Flanking, 3rd Paragraph wrote:
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.

Flanking, 3rd Paragraph

This paragraph merely tells us that as long as any one of the squares that a large or larger creature occupies is in a legal position, then they are flanking (i.e. large creatures don't have to precisely line up with one another opposite their targets to flank).

Ultimate Combat, page 130: Improved Back to Back:

"UC, page 130: Improved Back to Back wrote:
While you are adjacent to an ally who is flanked and also has this feat, you can spend a swift action to gain a +2 bonus to AC against all flankers until the start of your next turn.

Improved Back to Back Example

In this example, Kyra is being flanked by two goblins. Both Kyra and Valeros have the feat. Because both have the feat, Valeros can expend a swift action to gain a +2 bonus to AC against the goblins if they decide to attack him.

Note that if either of the goblins were wielding a ranged weapon, then the feat would not apply because Kyra would not be flanked.

APG, page 130: Assault Leader:

APG, page 130: Assault Leader wrote:
Once per day, when the rogue misses with an attack on a flanked opponent, she can designate a single ally who is also flanking the target that her attack missed. That ally can make a single melee attack against the opponent as an immediate action.

Assault Leader Example

In this example Valeros and Kyra are legally flanking a goblin. It is currently Merisiel's turn, and her attack misses. She then directs Valeros to attack as an immediate action.

Merisiel would be able to take advantage of this talent if she was using a ranged weapon as long as her target was flanked by two other allies.

She would also be able to use this talent if she were standing in Valeros' place (and direct Kyra to attack), though only if she were wielding a melee weapon. If she were only wielding a ranged weapon, then she would not because in that situation the target would not be flanked.

Ultimate Combat, page 100: Enfilading Fire:

Ultimate Combat, page 100: Enfilading Fire wrote:
You receive a +2 bonus on ranged attacks made against a foe flanked by 1 or more allies with this feat.

Enfilading Fire Example

Because the goblin is legally flanked by Valeros and Kyra (and we can assume that at least one of them also has this feat), Merisiel can make use of this feat.

Though, in this case, she could not replace either of her allies because the goblin would not be flanked due to her wielding a ranged weapon.

d20PFSRD.com: Topple Foe:

d20PFSRD.com: Topple Foe wrote:
If you attempt to trip a foe that is larger than you, you gain a +1 bonus on your CMB check to trip the foe as long as an ally with Topple Foe is flanking the foe with you. If multiple allies with Topple Foe are flanking the foe with you, you gain an additional +2 bonus on your CMD check for each additional ally that’s flanking the target.

Topple Foe Example

Assuming that all three allies have the feat, during Merisiel's turn, she would get a +3 to her CMB. Though, if she were wielding a ranged weapon, this feat could not be used because the target would not be flanked.

d20PFSRD.com: Amplified Rage:

d20PFSRD.com: Amplified Rage wrote:
Whenever you are raging and adjacent to a raging ally who has this feat or flanking the same opponent as a raging ally with this feat, your morale bonuses to Strength and Constitution increase by +4.

Amplified Rage Example

Assuming both characters are orcs or half-orcs, are raging, and have this feat, both get the bonus to STR and CON. If one were wielding a ranged weapon, then the feat would not apply (though they could still gain the benefits if they moved adjacent to one another).

Advanced Class Guide, PRD: Underfoot Assault:

ACG, PRD: Underfoot Assault wrote:

At 1st level, if a foe whose size is larger than the mouser's is adjacent to her and misses her with a melee attack, the mouser can as an immediate action spend 1 panache point to move 5 feet into an area of the attacker's space. This movement does not count against the mouser's movement the next round, and it doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. While the mouser is within a foe's space, she is considered to occupy her square within that foe's space.

While the mouser is within her foe's space, the foe takes a –4 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks not made against the mouser, and all of the mouser's allies that are adjacent to both the foe and the mouser are considered to be flanking the foe. The mouser is considered to be flanking the foe whose space she is within if she is adjacent to an ally who is also adjacent to the foe. The mouser can move within her foe's space and leave the foe's space unhindered and without provoking attacks of opportunity, but if the foe attempts to move to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space, the movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the mouser. This deed replaces opportune parry and riposte.

Underfoot Assault Example

This ability is unique in that it only requires an ally to be adjacent to the foe, not actually threaten it, in order for either of the characters to be considered flanking the foe. Though, they could still only make melee attacks.

CRB, PRD: Sneak Attack:

"CRB, PRD: Sneak Attack wrote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

It's important to point out that just because there is a clause that ranged attacks must be within 30 feet of the target to gain sneak attacks in the same paragraph that says that rogues gain extra damage any time the target is denied Dex or is flanked does not automatically mean that a rogue can sneak attack a target with a ranged weapon just because there is an ally standing opposite of the target. In that situation, as previously stated, the target is not flanked, even though there are two allies standing opposite of one another.

How does Snap Shot fit in?:

Ultimate Combat, page 119: Snap Shot wrote:
While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack of opportunity.

Because this feat allows you to threaten with a ranged weapon, it certainly can change some of the dynamics of the previously mentioned stuff. Though, this is only within the context of if we assume in all of the above examples that Valeros is equipped with a longbow and has the Snap Shot feat, that Kyra, and/or Merisiel could consider the target flanked because Valeros threatened the target.

The feat speaks nothing to whether or not Valeros can consider the target flanked when he is the one attacking with a ranged weapon. Though the argument can be made that the target is legally flanked and could be subject to sneak attack.

OP's question:

OP in OP wrote:
So, a rogue is holding a dagger (threatening) and across from an ally (flanking.) He activates his Cloak of the Hedge Wizard (conjuration) to use Acid Splash against the flanked opponent. He receives no flanking bonus since it's not a melee attack, but he is still flanking and so the Acid Splash does sneak damage, correct?

Does the rogue have Snap Shot? If no, then it's an easy no. If yes, a very soft maybe leaning towards a no to be on the conservative/safe side.

The fact that the rogue is holding a dagger and threatening the target at the time the ranged touch attack is made is irrelevant to this scenario.

TL;DR:

No.

Note, the last bit was made while it was late for me, so things were rushed and probably could be worded a bit better if I was more awake.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

the point of most of those feats, as the opposition seems to not realize is that they're worded to insinuate flanking is a condition.

which is the crux of our argument, that you can flank legally while doing other things. like if you could do sneak attack damage if you were flanking a target and drank from a potion, it would apply sneak attack since your flanking...

I really only posted this because i'm annoyed that EVERY post from the opposition on the feats did not actually talk on the point of contention.

Grand Lodge

So, kinda late into the ring, but here is one that I have not seen addressed yet: Flanking during a Non-Attack.

Enter, Strangle, from the Strangler Brawler:

Quote:
At 1st level, a strangler deals +1d6 sneak attack damage whenever she succeeds at a grapple check to damage or pin an opponent. The strangler is always considered flanking her target for the purpose of using this ability.

In previous threads, many of which are too long to summerize (similar to this one), a Grapple attempt is not an attack (and as such does not benefit from things like weapon finesse or flanking). Strangler, however, changes this and makes it so you are considered flanking for the purposes of using this ability.

Does this:
A) Modify flanking requirments not to have a positional element, and no 'melee attack' requirement,
-or-
B) Add a new condition by which you can get flanking?

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:

the point of most of those feats, as the opposition seems to not realize is that they're worded to insinuate flanking is a condition.

which is the crux of our argument, that you can flank legally while doing other things. like if you could do sneak attack damage if you were flanking a target and drank from a potion, it would apply sneak attack since your flanking...

I really only posted this because i'm annoyed that EVERY post from the opposition on the feats did not actually talk on the point of contention.

The point of contention is whether or not you can be considered flanking while wielding a ranged weapon. I think I've pretty much put that argument to bed.


Lets look at this text again:

Flanking wrote:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus...

Is this a typed bonus or untyped? It looks like it is a typed bonus, but some people say it is the definition of flanking.

If it is untyped, then you can stack it. For example: you face a large opponent. Just on the other side are two of your friends. Paragraph 2 shows each of the two friends is flanking. With an untyped bonus, you now get +4 on your attack. For a huge opponent, you can get +6.

_HHHF
AHHHF
_HHHF

A = attacker, F = Friend, H = Huge opponent

Does this seem right to those who claim the flanking bonus is also flanking?

The word flanking in the first paragraph looks like the name of a typed bonus and not a condition definition.

Did a scan of the CRB and found some interesting facts about bonuses....

Bonus Informtion:
CRB wrote:
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added tochecks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
CRB wrote:
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.

Found the following "types" listed:

[untyped], 10', alchemical, armor, attack, base attack, circumstance, competence, deflection, dodge, Ego, enhancement, flanking, inherent, insight, luck, morale, natural armor, profane, racial, racial saving throw, resistance, sacred, save, saving throw, shield, size, and Str

The most common, of course, was the untyped bonus, followed by enhancement, size, competence, natural armor, circumstance, morale, racial, resistance, dodge, deflection, luck, and the rest.

The least common, were: (used once) 10', alchemical, base attack, flanking, saving throw, Str, (used twice) attack, Ego, (used three times) racial saving throw.

I was going to say the construct signed-number word(s) "bonus" was always used by the CRB to signify a typed bonus, but after all the odds and ends, I am not so sure. :-/

They have save bonus, saving throw bonus, racial saving throw bonus, and resistance bonus. Why? These would all RAW stack despite RAI meaning the exact same thing. [Well, maybe not the r.s.t.b.]

/cevah


Bandw2 wrote:

the point of most of those feats, as the opposition seems to not realize is that they're worded to insinuate flanking is a condition.

which is the crux of our argument, that you can flank legally while doing other things. like if you could do sneak attack damage if you were flanking a target and drank from a potion, it would apply sneak attack since your flanking...

I really only posted this because i'm annoyed that EVERY post from the opposition on the feats did not actually talk on the point of contention.

I did. But I addressed all the feat stuff like 300 posts ago. So *shrug*


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
HangarFlying wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

the point of most of those feats, as the opposition seems to not realize is that they're worded to insinuate flanking is a condition.

which is the crux of our argument, that you can flank legally while doing other things. like if you could do sneak attack damage if you were flanking a target and drank from a potion, it would apply sneak attack since your flanking...

I really only posted this because i'm annoyed that EVERY post from the opposition on the feats did not actually talk on the point of contention.

The point of contention is whether or not you can be considered flanking while wielding a ranged weapon. I think I've pretty much put that argument to bed.

buuuut, we're not saying it's allowed normally, we're saying by flanking normally at the same time you count as flanking separate from your ranged attack.

or your character is flanking, your ranged does not, but sneak attack does not check if your attack counts as flanking or not.


Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:

So, kinda late into the ring, but here is one that I have not seen addressed yet: Flanking during a Non-Attack.

Enter, Strangle, from the Strangler Brawler:

Quote:
At 1st level, a strangler deals +1d6 sneak attack damage whenever she succeeds at a grapple check to damage or pin an opponent. The strangler is always considered flanking her target for the purpose of using this ability.

In previous threads, many of which are too long to summerize (similar to this one), a Grapple attempt is not an attack (and as such does not benefit from things like weapon finesse or flanking). Strangler, however, changes this and makes it so you are considered flanking for the purposes of using this ability.

Does this:
A) Modify flanking requirments not to have a positional element, and no 'melee attack' requirement,
-or-
B) Add a new condition by which you can get flanking?

Combat maneuvers are attacks, just specific types. This modifies the positional aspect of flanking.


fretgod99 wrote:
Cevah wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Why you'd want to ignore RAI, I have no idea.

Because this is the Rules forum, not the Advice forum. :-)

/cevah

But the RAI are the rules. If your position is the RAW are unclear and creates confusion as to RAI, and you therefore want to clarify the RAW to better match the RAI, fine. But even then, you shouldn't really be advocating for the disingenuous interpretation of RAW, particularly when you know it's not the reading intended.

Yes, RAI are rules. So is RAW. The very abbreviation tells you that much.

In order to better match RAI, you must write RAW carefully. Flanking was not written carefully. Biggest problem comes when RAW does NOT lead to RAI. If you have to add definitions, rules, and so on to RAW to make it match RAI, then it certainly is not clearly matching RAI.

The rules forum is about RAW and what it actually sais. Not about what we want it to say. I play it RAI, I expect it to be played RAI, but that is not what RAW sais. Being an anal-retentive kind of guy, I am trying to get the exact meaning of RAW, and that leads me to my position on RAW, not yours.

I would be quite satisfied if the PDT would actually say flanking only applies to melee unless a specific thing overrides it. Instead they give us the gang-up faq where they refer a rule that does not exist as an aside, and not a simple unambiguous statement.

/cevah


Quintain wrote:
The bottom line is threatening while on the opposite side of an opponent from your ally and flanking are not the same thing.

Agree

Quintain wrote:
Flanking is melee and melee only. End of Story, RAW as well as RAI.

Do not agree

/cevah

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:


buuuut, we're not saying it's allowed normally, we're saying by flanking normally at the same time you count as flanking separate from your ranged attack.

or your character is flanking, your ranged does not, but sneak attack does not check if your attack counts as flanking or not.

Me thinks you didn't actually read my mega-post. If you had, you would have realized that I addressed this issue quite clearly.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
HangarFlying wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


buuuut, we're not saying it's allowed normally, we're saying by flanking normally at the same time you count as flanking separate from your ranged attack.

or your character is flanking, your ranged does not, but sneak attack does not check if your attack counts as flanking or not.

Me thinks you didn't actually read my mega-post. If you had, you would have realized that I addressed this issue quite clearly.

no not really you used a longbow in your examples

examples we used were dagger wielding rogue that casts ray of frost or throws a second dagger.

still flanking as far as i can see unless something says otherwise.


HangarFlying wrote:

Underfoot Assault

This ability is unique in that it only requires an ally to be adjacent to the foe, not actually threaten it, in order for either of the characters to be considered flanking the foe. Though, they could still only make melee attacks.

Um...., where is the restriction to melee weapons?

Makes sense to avoid AoOs, but I don't see any text referring to how they can attack.

/cevah

Grand Lodge

fretgod99 wrote:
Combat maneuvers are attacks, just specific types. This modifies the positional aspect of flanking.

But I thought one of the qualifications for flanking was making a melee attack. Which grapple might not be, as per other dicussions.

Here

Liberty's Edge

Cevah wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

Underfoot Assault

This ability is unique in that it only requires an ally to be adjacent to the foe, not actually threaten it, in order for either of the characters to be considered flanking the foe. Though, they could still only make melee attacks.

Um...., where is the restriction to melee weapons?

Makes sense to avoid AoOs, but I don't see any text referring to how they can attack.

/cevah

I'm going to chalk that one up to fatigue. I don't see anything that prevents them from using ranged weapons, per se, though they definately wouldn't get the +2 flanking bonus.


Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Combat maneuvers are attacks, just specific types. This modifies the positional aspect of flanking.

But I thought one of the qualifications for flanking was making a melee attack. Which grapple might not be, as per other dicussions.

Here

Grapple is an attack. Whether it constitutes a "melee attack" is a bit more unclear.

But the difference is that the Strangler's ability applies when dealing damage on a grapple check. You can apply sneak attack during a grapple normally if the proper conditions are met. Whether you technically can with just a "grapple check" to damage might be questionable, but certainly with an unarmed strike or light weapon. Strangler removes the need to be flanking with someone else, you're automatically considered flanking.

And my perspective has never been that a melee attack is mandatory. My position has been that flanking requires a specific attack, which is ordinarily a melee attack. But different abilities can alter what the relevant attack is when you're determining position. This ability also appears tonalter the relevant attack (if you assume that damaging via grapple check alone is typically insufficient).

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bandw2 wrote:
which can only come out of a FAQ.

Glad you mention that. There is in fact a FAQ of this type. The Gang Up FAQ goes out of the way to explain why it doesn't work by saying there is no such thing as ranged flanking.

Bandw2 wrote:

insinuate flanking is a condition.

did not actually talk on the point of contention.

I'm fine with the concept of you having the flanking condition. But if you don't make a melee attack, it doesn't matter that you have the flanking condition. If you ranged Sneak Attack with Flanking condition, you don't get Sneak Attack dice because you didn't make a melee attack to make use of your flanking condition. There is no ranged flanking.


HangarFlying wrote:
Cevah wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

Underfoot Assault

This ability is unique in that it only requires an ally to be adjacent to the foe, not actually threaten it, in order for either of the characters to be considered flanking the foe. Though, they could still only make melee attacks.

Um...., where is the restriction to melee weapons?

Makes sense to avoid AoOs, but I don't see any text referring to how they can attack.

/cevah

I'm going to chalk that one up to fatigue. I don't see anything that prevents them from using ranged weapons, per se, though they definately wouldn't get the +2 flanking bonus.

I'm assuming that the author likely was thinking of threatening when mentioning adjacent, but the term wasn't actually used. Since it wasn't used ...

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:
a Grapple attempt is not an attack

All Combat Maneuver Checks are attacks. To make a grapple you must be adjacent. If you succeed with reach, the target is pulled adjacent.


Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
still flanking as far as i can see unless something says otherwise.

Can you "flank" an Elemental? RAW says you CANNOT.

Elemental Subtype wrote:
Not subject to critical hits or flanking. Does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks, such as sneak attack.

If "flanking" is not the same as "flanking bonus", as some have said, then you are saying that two allies can't occupy squares on the opposite sides of an elemental. This makes no sense.

Saying "You don't have to have the flanking bonus in order to be considered flanking for sneak attack purposes" makes no sense.


Cevah wrote:


If it is untyped, then you can stack it. For example: you face a large opponent. Just on the other side are two of your friends. Paragraph 2 shows each of the two friends is flanking. With an untyped bonus, you now get +4 on your attack. For a huge opponent, you can get +6.

No. Untyped bonuses from the same source do not stack. In this case the source is 'flanking'


Bandw2 wrote:

i should mention 1 post from 1 dev does not RAI make, you need a team consensus, which can only come out of a FAQ.

that's all i'm throwing back in the ring, this thread was fun while it lasted but people seem to be arguing ... not factually anymore, so it's no longer even fun to defend my side, or at least people seem to argue past each other without actually attacking the point at best deflecting it in the circle of debate.

oh well. fun while it lasted.

Heh, I left it long ago for this very reason.

So far Cevah is the only one (IMO) that has put forth any kind of reasonable argument from the rules themselves. As to why he insists that is the correct reading of the rules, when he knows it goes against RAI, and an alternate reading of the rules matches the RAI.... I'm at a loss on that one.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
which can only come out of a FAQ.

Glad you mention that. There is in fact a FAQ of this type. The Gang Up FAQ goes out of the way to explain why it doesn't work by saying there is no such thing as ranged flanking.

that's made in the context of gang up feat, nor am i claiming you flank while making a ranged attack.

James Risner wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

insinuate flanking is a condition.

did not actually talk on the point of contention.

I'm fine with the concept of you having the flanking condition. But if you don't make a melee attack, it doesn't matter that you have the flanking condition. If you ranged Sneak Attack with Flanking condition, you don't get Sneak Attack dice because you didn't make a melee attack to make use of your flanking condition. There is no ranged flanking.

I'm actually claiming your flanking, from another source and your sneak attack procs from that. for me the fact that you don;t lose the flanking condition is enough, nowhere does it say you can only use melee attacks if your sneak attack is applicable from a flank.

in other words if you can get sneak attack on your dagger attack(or any attack for that matter), you can get it on your ray of frost since sneak attack does not care for the source.


HangarFlying wrote:
The point of contention is whether or not you can be considered flanking while wielding a ranged weapon. I think I've pretty much put that argument to bed.

No, you haven't. You posted a lot of nonsense that all relies on the circular logic I've already demonstrated - if flanking is nothing more than a bonus applied to melee attacks then it is impossible to receive because the bonus requires you to be flanking which would then require you to receive the flanking bonus which would then require you to be flanking which would...

You see my point? Or do you want to continue being obstinate about a basic logical concept?


MadMage wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
The point of contention is whether or not you can be considered flanking while wielding a ranged weapon. I think I've pretty much put that argument to bed.

No, you haven't. You posted a lot of nonsense that all relies on the circular logic I've already demonstrated - if flanking is nothing more than a bonus applied to melee attacks then it is impossible to receive because the bonus requires you to be flanking which would then require you to receive the flanking bonus which would then require you to be flanking which would...

You see my point? Or do you want to continue being obstinate about a basic logical concept?

You fail to understand what is being argued regarding flanking requiring melee. When you understand it you will stop making this claim regarding circular logic (you may or may not agree with the position, but you won't make false arguments).


bbangerter wrote:
You fail to understand what is being argued regarding flanking requiring melee. When you understand it you will stop making this claim regarding circular logic (you may or may not agree with the position, but you won't make false arguments).

The basis of the claim relies almost entirely on the CRB's section on flanking noting little more than a bonus to-hit that one receives for attacking a flanked target, and as far as I understand is essentially that the definition of 'flanking' is thus assumed to be this bonus, and nothing more.

My contention with this is twofold:

1. The rulebook does not specifically define it as such.

2. It uses the definition of flanking in the description for the bonus, thus creating circular logic [if you insist that flanking is no more than this bonus].

I've seen nothing in the tertiary 'evidence' to support the claim that flanking applies only to melee attacks because of an inherent bonus melee attacks receive against flanked targets, merely insubstantial assumptions based on verbiage.

RAW does not support the claim that ranged attacks cannot qualify as flanking - and thus receive no Sneak Attack damage, and RAI would be even more unlikely as the act of shooting someone from behind is entirely within the spirit of Sneak Attacks.


MadMage wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
The point of contention is whether or not you can be considered flanking while wielding a ranged weapon. I think I've pretty much put that argument to bed.

No, you haven't. You posted a lot of nonsense that all relies on the circular logic I've already demonstrated - if flanking is nothing more than a bonus applied to melee attacks then it is impossible to receive because the bonus requires you to be flanking which would then require you to receive the flanking bonus which would then require you to be flanking which would...

You see my point? Or do you want to continue being obstinate about a basic logical concept?

No flanking can be referred to as a condition, sure.

But in order to be flanking, you must threaten.
You can only threaten with a melee weapon.

If you happen to be threatening with a melee weapon, and also happen to be holding onto a ranged weapon, then you still are flanking, sure, for the purpose of your ally gaining the bonus.

When you go to make your ranged attack however, it doesn't threaten, only the melee attack did.

Your ranged attack cannot threaten, therefore it cannot flank. Any flanking condition or bonus you gain comes from and only applies to the melee attack that you threaten with.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Your ranged attack cannot threaten, therefore it cannot flank. Any flanking condition or bonus you gain comes from and only applies to the melee attack that you threaten with.

Where does the rulebook say that the attack I make must threaten?

The only stated criteria is that the target is threatened (which requires a melee weapon), not that the attack itself be 'threatening'.


MadMage wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Your ranged attack cannot threaten, therefore it cannot flank. Any flanking condition or bonus you gain comes from and only applies to the melee attack that you threaten with.

Where does the rulebook say that the attack I make must threaten?

The only stated criteria is that the target is threatened (which requires a melee weapon), not that the attack itself be 'threatening'.

You are making up a rule, there is also nothing that says that the attack can be ranged, and there are things that say the attack cannot be ranged.

You are not threatening with the ranged weapon, therefore the ranged weapon cannot be used to flank.


Quintain wrote:
FrozenLaughs wrote:


Now say he wanted to shoot you instead of stab you:
Sneak Attack wrote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is
...
Gang Up wrote:


You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.
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)
So, no. You cannot shoot someone while using Gang Up any more than you can power attack with a ranged weapon.

Well that's great, too bad the Feat is poorly worded and 90% of the people playing Pathfinder will never read or even know about the existence of an FAQ/Errata for it. That's a damn shame, but you learn something new every login!

So there is literally no possible way to apply Sneak Attack to a ranged attack from the Flanking state.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Crash_00 wrote:

Is he threatening the target?

Is the target flanked by him?

He doesn't get the flanking bonus, as we've made clear this whole time, but Mark makes it clear that he flanks to provide the bonus to others. That would mean that he flanks when checking his sneak attack as well, would it not?

I was going to just leave it with my silly little post, but if you're appealing to me here particularly, then no, it would not. What he is doing is providing a flank. That is not the same as flanking when it comes to the ranged attack. Flanking means what others here have described.

I last checked this thread 300+ posts ago. Has anything been said by another dev / author / designer to contradict what Mark said? (my deft shootist gunslinger needs to know! thank you!)


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
MadMage wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Your ranged attack cannot threaten, therefore it cannot flank. Any flanking condition or bonus you gain comes from and only applies to the melee attack that you threaten with.

Where does the rulebook say that the attack I make must threaten?

The only stated criteria is that the target is threatened (which requires a melee weapon), not that the attack itself be 'threatening'.

You are making up a rule, there is also nothing that says that the attack can be ranged, and there are things that say the attack cannot be ranged.

You are not threatening with the ranged weapon, therefore the ranged weapon cannot be used to flank.

how are we making up a rule?, you're the one claiming we stop threatening with our dagger when there is no rule of such kind.

Liberty's Edge

MadMage wrote:

Where does the rulebook say that the attack I make must threaten?

The only stated criteria is that the target is threatened (which requires a melee weapon), not that the attack itself be 'threatening'.

When the CRB was written, were any of these extra feats and class abilities that have been discussed in this thread available? No.

So, as far as the CRB is concerned, the only time flanking comes in to play is when you are making a melee attack and you have an ally on the opposite side that threatens your target. The CRB is written from the point of view of someone making an attack, and what requirements need to be fulfilled to be considered flanking your target. For a rogue, these requirements need to be met in order to be considered flanking.

Now we have all these class features and feats in which the attacker doesn't have to be the one actually flanking the target. Well, how do we determine if our target is considered flanked?

Since, according to the CRB the attacker needs an ally that threatens the target and stands opposite, it stands to reason that as long as your target has two (or more) allies which threaten it and stand opposite of each other, the target can be considered flanked.

We also have some feats and/or class abilities that allow allies to be standing in different positions other than directly opposite one another, and the target can still be considered flanked.

Does any of this change how an attack works if the attacker is trying to flank his target? No. At least not in the fact that the attack needs to be made with a melee weapon, and the ally needs to be in a legal position and threaten your target.

This isn't circular logic, it's deductive reasoning.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
HangarFlying wrote:
MadMage wrote:

Where does the rulebook say that the attack I make must threaten?

The only stated criteria is that the target is threatened (which requires a melee weapon), not that the attack itself be 'threatening'.

When the CRB was written, were any of these extra feats and class abilities that have been discussed in this thread available? No.

sneak attack and the ability to threaten with a dagger and cast ray of frost weren't a thing in the CRB?

because that's all we're arguing, the rest is just evidence to prove that the game runs flanking a bit more liberally than possibly intended.


Cevah wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

Underfoot Assault

This ability is unique in that it only requires an ally to be adjacent to the foe, not actually threaten it, in order for either of the characters to be considered flanking the foe. Though, they could still only make melee attacks.

Um...., where is the restriction to melee weapons?

Makes sense to avoid AoOs, but I don't see any text referring to how they can attack.

/cevah

I want to speak a bit more on this point

Underfoot Assault wrote:

Underfoot Assault (Ex): At 1st level, if a foe whose size is larger than the mouser's is adjacent to her and misses her with a melee attack, the mouser can as an immediate action spend 1 panache point to move 5 feet into an area of the attacker's space. This movement does not count against the mouser's movement the next round, and it doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. While the mouser is within a foe's space, she is considered to occupy her square within that foe's space.

While the mouser is within her foe's space, the foe takes a –4 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks not made against the mouser, and all of the mouser's allies that are adjacent to both the foe and the mouser are considered to be flanking the foe. The mouser is considered to be flanking the foe whose space she is within if she is adjacent to an ally who is also adjacent to the foe. The mouser can move within her foe's space and leave the foe's space unhindered and without provoking attacks of opportunity, but if the foe attempts to move to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space, the movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the mouser. This deed replaces opportune parry and riposte.

Gang Up wrote:
You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.

Since Gang Up doesn't allow you to flank a foe with a ranged attack, because flanking is specifically melee attacks, then Underfoot Assault wouldn't as well.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bandw2 wrote:
in other words if you can get sneak attack on your dagger attack(or any attack for that matter), you can get it on your ray of frost since sneak attack does not care for the source.

You don't have any line to back that interpretation up other than the lack of a line saying flanking is explicitly only in the context of melee attacks. I read the rules that it is only for melee, the developers read it that way, and the FAQ on Gang Up make it clear that reading it any other way isn't the rules.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

FrozenLaughs wrote:
So there is literally no possible way to apply Sneak Attack to a ranged attack from the Flanking state.

Correct per FAQ and Mark quote in this thread.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Has anything been said by another dev / author / designer to contradict what Mark said?

No developer contradiction. The only additional thing said by Paizo is Mark saying that it looked like it didn't matter what Paizo said people would continue to argue otherwise.

501 to 550 of 645 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does Sneak Attack apply to ranged attacks when you are flanking? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.