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


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 645 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So other than RAW in the CRB, an FAQ explicitly listing flanking as melee, and a Dev commenting in this very thread, what evidence do you have that can't flank with a ranged weapon?

proof that the game functions correctly as written in most cases when flanking is mentioned beyond the +2 bonus.

PLEASE, explain how assault leader works if only a melee attack can flank?

PLEASE, explain how sneak attacks can ever happen if a rogue cannot flank, and only her melee attacks can.

occam's razor suggests that the least is assumed in that people flank, and thus it is the most correct solution.

edit: please note, that if your answer is "he provided a flank, which is the same as flanking" then we just run aground of the same issue, because then the rogue is still providing a flank and thus still get's that sneak attack damage because she still fulfills everything, as she flanks with a dagger and made an attack against someone she flanks. (this effectively means, still, that regardless of what the devs want, their solution doesn't fix anything)


Bandw2 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So other than RAW in the CRB, an FAQ explicitly listing flanking as melee, and a Dev commenting in this very thread, what evidence do you have that can't flank with a ranged weapon?

proof that the game functions correctly as written in most cases when flanking is mentioned beyond the +2 bonus.

PLEASE, explain how assault leader works if only a melee attack can flank?

PLEASE, explain how sneak attacks can ever happen if a rogue cannot flank, and only her melee attacks can.

occam's razor suggests that the least is assumed in that people flank, and thus it is the most correct solution.

edit: please note, that if your answer is "he provided a flank, which is the same as flanking" then we just run aground of the same issue, because then the rogue is still providing a flank and thus still get's that sneak attack damage because she still fulfills everything, as she flanks with a dagger and made an attack against someone she flanks. (this effectively means, still, that regardless of what the devs want, their solution doesn't fix anything)

I already explained how all that works.

*shrug*

Dammit. Failed my will save. I need to take Iron Will next level.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So other than RAW in the CRB, an FAQ explicitly listing flanking as melee, and a Dev commenting in this very thread, what evidence do you have that can't flank with a ranged weapon?

proof that the game functions correctly as written in most cases when flanking is mentioned beyond the +2 bonus.

PLEASE, explain how assault leader works if only a melee attack can flank?

PLEASE, explain how sneak attacks can ever happen if a rogue cannot flank, and only her melee attacks can.

occam's razor suggests that the least is assumed in that people flank, and thus it is the most correct solution.

edit: please note, that if your answer is "he provided a flank, which is the same as flanking" then we just run aground of the same issue, because then the rogue is still providing a flank and thus still get's that sneak attack damage because she still fulfills everything, as she flanks with a dagger and made an attack against someone she flanks. (this effectively means, still, that regardless of what the devs want, their solution doesn't fix anything)

I already explained how all that works.

*shrug*

Dammit. Failed my will save. I need to take Iron Will next level.

your explanation ignored the fact that the ally was not in fact an eligible target for the effect, if he is, then as i stated, the rogue still "flanks" since she is a flanking buddy for someone else, and thus her attack gets sneak dice.

the position isn't even supported in the rules, a dev post on the forums are not even to be considered RAI as other devs may disagree, and once again, the game simply breaks under other interpretations.


fretgod99 wrote:

I already explained how all that works.

*shrug*

Dammit. Failed my will save. I need to take Iron Will next level.

No, you really didn't.

Your claim is that you only check flanking at the time of a melee attack.

Assault Leader is used. A rogue makes a melee attack. He misses. Assault Leader triggers. He checks for an ally that is flanking. No one is making a melee attack, so no one can be flanking by that mindset. Full Stop.

But, let's use this same logic you're applying here. When do you check for Sneak Attack? Every single attack. You check for denied dex, then you check whether you flank your target, then you check the 30 ft. and Concealment restrictions.

So, you check for the flank every time you make an attack as a rogue.

As for what would satisfy me, a designer actually being able to answer the questions about the issue in a way that doesn't contradict the CRB. Mark provided an answer, but it contradicts the CRB and uses a made up concept of "providing the flank."

If two people are flanking (as the CRB tells us), one is attack and one is doing what? He has to be providing the flank as Mark put it, but the CRB just calls that flanking. Yet on his turn, when he fires, he suddenly isn't flanking anymore for the attack, then begins flanking again. What changed? He was threatening the whole time. He was in the right position the whole time. You can claim he wasn't making a melee attack, but he wasn't making a melee attack on the other guys turn either. Nothing has changed by RAW.

If you have to make up new terms and rules to defend your position on what the rules say, then its usually not what the rules actually say. I mentioned in my first post that what the rules say is not what the designers want the rules to say. I'm surprised at this point that they haven't tidied them up.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bandw2 wrote:
except that isn't what it says. it simply says you need to be flanking, claiming otherwise is simply entirely false.

That isn't what it says to you, but to me it says that if you want Sneak Attack from flanking, make a melee attack. Otherwise, get your target denied their Dexterity from your attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crash_00 wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

I already explained how all that works.

*shrug*

Dammit. Failed my will save. I need to take Iron Will next level.

No, you really didn't.

Your claim is that you only check flanking at the time of a melee attack.

Assault Leader is used. A rogue makes a melee attack. He misses. Assault Leader triggers. He checks for an ally that is flanking. No one is making a melee attack, so no one can be flanking by that mindset. Full Stop.

No, not really. As I've said, that's standard OP. Different abilities can actually change the analysis slightly (for instance, Gang Up changes how you analyze the positions allies have to be in to flank); Assault Leader is one such ability.

So it's pretty simple, really. When the Rogue misses an opponent s/he has flanked and wants to trigger an ally's attack, check to see if that ally is also in a position to flank if s/he made an attack (almost always yes, but if the Rogue is flanking because of Gang Up, possibly not - this is one of those situations where an ally can provide flanking but not actually be flanking).

See, Assault Leader is predicated upon checking position before checking the attack (as I said before, in the (basically) two step process, it doesn't really matter which step goes first). It's inherent in the ability itself. The Rogue lets the Rogue's flank buddy make an attack when the Rogue misses, so long as the flank buddy is also in a position to benefit from flanking.

Again, not a problem. Are you making a relevant attack? Are allies in the relevant positions? Different abilities might slightly alter how you resolve those questions, but the questions are pretty much the same, every time.

Quote:

But, let's use this same logic you're applying here. When do you check for Sneak Attack? Every single attack. You check for denied dex, then you check whether you flank your target, then you check the 30 ft. and Concealment restrictions.

So, you check for the flank every time you make an attack as a rogue.

Why wouldn't you check to see if you can apply sneak attack every time your Rogue attacks? That's where most of a Rogue's damage comes from. Of course, if your situation hasn't changed at all between attacks, you already know that whatever happened last time is likely going to be what happens this time (in regard to flanking - denied DEX depends on why they're denied DEX).

I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here. Of course you check on every single attack. Why wouldn't you? If you're not checking for flanking or trying to get into a position to flank (even as a non-Rogue melee combatant), you're likely cheating yourself out of damage potential. But sometimes the analysis is quite easy. Are your allies in the proper position? If not, just go ahead and stop. Are you making a melee attack? If not, then (absent something like Enfilading Fire, etc.) flanking isn't going to be relevant anyway, so just go ahead and stop.

Finally, and once again, "providing flank" is not a made-up term or concept. The concept is straight out of the rules. For the simplest case, look at a situation caused by Gang Up. E=Enemy, A=Ally, R=Rogue with Gang Up

____
|EA
|AR
|

Our Enemy here has backed itself into a corner. Good on you, Enemy! Very smart strategic thinking; keep any of your adversaries from slipping behind you and making you more vulnerable, particularly from sneaky Rogue! Since clever Enemy doesn't have Improved Uncanny Dodge, clever Enemy knows it would be susceptible to flanking.

But wait! This isn't sneaky Rogue's first rodeo. Last time sneaky Rogue took a feat, sneaky Rogue took Gang Up because sneaky Rogue got tired of being denied sneak attack opportunities because clever enemies kept backing themselves into corners. So now, sneaky Rogue can still sneak attack clever Enemy because Gang Up changes the position allies have to be in for sneaky Rogue to be considered flanking.

Sneaky Rogue is attacking with a dagger. It's a melee attack, so we still know flanking is relevant. Now, sneaky Rogue checks the relevant position of its allies. Instead of needing an ally to be on the opposite corner of clever Enemy (which would now be impossible because clever Enemy cleverly backed itself into a corner where such a position would be unattainable), sneaky Rogue just needs two other allies to be threatening clever Enemy. Well, both allies are wielding melee weapons and they are adjacent to clever Enemy. So it looks like sneaky Rogue is flanking! Huzzah! Sneaky Rogue can apply sneak attack damage to its successful attacks!

But what's this? Sneaky Rogue rolls a 1! *Downer Debbie face*

That's ok, though! Sneaky Rogue has the Assault Leader talent! Its miss can be used to possibly trigger one Ally's own attack as an immediate action! But, Ally has to be flanking clever Enemy for that to be possible. Ally wants to make an attack, but neither Ally has the Gang Up feat. So they can only be considered flanking if there is an ally of their own standing opposite of clever Enemy. Sadly, that's not possible here. Clever Enemy is safe from sneaky Rogue's Assault Leader ability because, even though two allies are providing flanking for sneaky Rogue on clever Enemy, neither of those allies is actually flanking clever Enemy.

Sneaky Rogue still has another attack, though. Can sneaky Rogue apply sneak attack to this attack, as well? Sneaky Rogue was flanking on its last attack and nothing has changed, so yep! Sneaky Rogue is still flanking and can apply sneak attack on a successful hit!

And that, my friends, is just one way someone can provide flanking to an ally and not actually be flanking itself. Bonus explanation on how checking multiple attacks for flanking works, too!

Not only has the game not broken down here, but everything actually seems to be working, entirely as intended.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have the sneaking suspicion that the design team are looking at this thread and saying "what?! Oh, God, it's holding/wielding/attacking all over again!"


Chemlak wrote:
I have the sneaking suspicion that the design team are looking at this thread and saying "what?! Oh, God, it's holding/wielding/attacking all over again!"

I do have a suspicion that at least some of the feats currently on the books were written with the idea that flanking functions differently from how the devs want it to.


i really have nothing to add to this discussion but would like to follow it as it moves forward

tl;dr: dot


Chemlak wrote:
I have the sneaking suspicion that the design team are looking at this thread and saying "what?! Oh, God, it's holding/wielding/attacking all over again!"

I think the Sunder thread is a closer analogy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
I have the sneaking suspicion that the design team are looking at this thread and saying "what?! Oh, God, it's holding/wielding/attacking all over again!"
I think the Sunder thread is a closer analogy.

I don't remember that one: might be before my time.

My 2 cp on the matter: if two allies are on opposite sides of an enemy, and threatening that enemy, they are flanking that enemy. The benefits and any rider effects associated with flanking will only occur in the event of a melee attack (unless an ability explicitly allows flanking with ranged attacks).

This is the only answer that actually makes sense. If you only apply it during the melee attack, it's actually impossible to flank, by RAW:

Quote:
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers.

Since only one character can attack at any time, it's actually impossible to have two attackers.

Long and short: you're a flanker if your flanking a flanked target.


It was a bit after you joined. Long story short, a thread on how many times you could sunder in a round came up (text was ambiguous). It quickly ballooned to 1000+ posts, and by the time the PDT made a FAQ on it, the side of the debate that was saying it could be used only once started saying that the PDT invented a new action and changed the rules of the game.

So, it was pretty messy.


Chemlak wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
I have the sneaking suspicion that the design team are looking at this thread and saying "what?! Oh, God, it's holding/wielding/attacking all over again!"
I think the Sunder thread is a closer analogy.

I don't remember that one: might be before my time.

My 2 cp on the matter: if two allies are on opposite sides of an enemy, and threatening that enemy, they are flanking that enemy. The benefits and any rider effects associated with flanking will only occur in the event of a melee attack (unless an ability explicitly allows flanking with ranged attacks).

This is the only answer that actually makes sense. If you only apply it during the melee attack, it's actually impossible to flank, by RAW:

Quote:
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers.

Since only one character can attack at any time, it's actually impossible to have two attackers.

Long and short: you're a flanker if your flanking a flanked target.

Pretty much.

Chalk up some of this to unfortunately imprecise wording. You can't have two people actually attacking at the same time. So, literal "attackers", no. But "attackers" in the sense that two people are threatening and able to attack, yeah. So, colloquial "attackers", yeah.

That's the positional requirement (usually).

Then, like you said, determine whether a relevant attack is being made (usually melee). If so, then whatever bonuses and benefits that might be derived from the fact that the defender is being threatened by two (usually) allied combatants who are able to make attacks (i.e., it's flanked).

That's the attack requirement.

That pretty well handles any issues surrounding flanking (and does so in accordance with the Developers seeming intent), including any subsequently written feats that people think cause problems.

EDIT: There's an idea that flanking (well, "flanked") is an implicit condition. I don't think I really would have a problem with that condition, so long as it's pretty clearly defined. It'd have to be clear that the condition only confers benefits on the attacker if the attacker is one of the flankers and is using an appropriate attack. But doing that would mean they'd likely have to reword a number of things - E.g., Gang Up would confer the flanked condition in the relevant situations, but only for melee attacks coming from the attacker with the Gang Up feat.

What's there now might be a bit more imprecise than would be nice, but clarifying that via FAQ is whole heaps easier than Errata'ing a whole mess of abilities to account for a now explicit condition.


Cheapy wrote:

It was a bit after you joined. Long story short, a thread on how many times you could sunder in a round came up (text was ambiguous). It quickly ballooned to 1000+ posts, and by the time the PDT made a FAQ on it, the side of the debate that was saying it could be used only once started saying that the PDT invented a new action and changed the rules of the game.

So, it was pretty messy.

Was it because of the "as a part of an attack action" language instead of like trip's "in place of a melee attack"?

I suppose I can understand that confusion based on the Vital Strike/Spring Attack/etc. stuff. But not to that extent.


fretgod99 wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

It was a bit after you joined. Long story short, a thread on how many times you could sunder in a round came up (text was ambiguous). It quickly ballooned to 1000+ posts, and by the time the PDT made a FAQ on it, the side of the debate that was saying it could be used only once started saying that the PDT invented a new action and changed the rules of the game.

So, it was pretty messy.

Was it because of the "as a part of an attack action" language instead of like trip's "in place of a melee attack"?

I suppose I can understand that confusion based on the Vital Strike/Spring Attack/etc. stuff. But not to that extent.

Yep, pretty much it was about that.

Actually, I think the debate was more about if attack action meant the standard action or not, and I think it was more like "One side was right for the wrong reasons". It's been a few years so I'm not recalling the specifics, but doesn't really matter.

A designer has told us that they aren't flanking, which is in line with the FAQ on gang up.

Lantern Lodge

I personally would love to see ranged flanking. It makes sense. It opens up more options, especially for a class that needs them.

However, dems the rules (so long, sniper rogue :( )


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

I personally would love to see ranged flanking. It makes sense. It opens up more options, especially for a class that needs them.

However, dems the rules (so long, sniper rogue :( )

If I had to guess, the reason for no ranged flanking has nothing to do whether or not it makes simulationist sense, but rather as a pure game balance decision. Basically its designed solely as a boost to melee combat to help counter some of the advantages of ranged combat(just like ranged attacks provoking AoOs).


Calth wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

I personally would love to see ranged flanking. It makes sense. It opens up more options, especially for a class that needs them.

However, dems the rules (so long, sniper rogue :( )

If I had to guess, the reason for no ranged flanking has nothing to do whether or not it makes simulationist sense, but rather as a pure game balance decision. Basically its designed solely as a boost to melee combat to help counter some of the advantages of ranged combat(just like ranged attacks provoking AoOs).

Certainly it's a balance thing. I could see it being a reasonable Advanced Rogue Talent maybe. Maybe with a Rogue Talent prereq (something that would be similar to how like Enfilading Fire or Coordinated Shot works now).

"If your allies are flanking a target and you are within 30', you get +2 on all ranged attacks."
"When you use ^ Rogue Talent, you are considered to be flanking your target and can apply sneak attack."

Something like that might be reasonable.

Or maybe an ART where if your target is flanked by your allies, that opponent is denied its DEX for the first ranged attack you make every round.

Or hell, an ART that says, "If you have the Gang Up feat, it applies to any ranged attacks you make within 30'."

It certainly wouldn't kill balance at that point, I don't think. At the point where Rogues are getting ART, they're certainly quite behind in terms of DPR, especially because getting reliable sneak attack on a regular basis can be quite difficult.

*shrug*


So, in order to threaten you must be wielding a melee weapon and be within range. While threatening you are only considered threatening with that melee weapon. If an ally is in position opposite the opponent then you flank that opponent. Only when making an attack with the weapon that threatens are you considered flanking and gain the +2 bonus on attack rolls.
Feats exist that assist in expanding the positions in which you can stand to flank, but you must still attack with your threatening weapon to be flanking and gain the +2.

This much is clear to me, an actual question here, how does Snap Shot interact with these rules? Does it allow you to threaten for the purpose of flanking, or only for the purpose of making attacks of opportunity, or is there even such a distinction between these two types of threatening in the game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

So, in order to threaten you must be wielding a melee weapon and be within range. While threatening you are only considered threatening with that melee weapon. If an ally is in position opposite the opponent then you flank that opponent. Only when making an attack with the weapon that threatens are you considered flanking and gain the +2 bonus on attack rolls.

Feats exist that assist in expanding the positions in which you can stand to flank, but you must still attack with your threatening weapon to be flanking and gain the +2.

This much is clear to me, an actual question here, how does Snap Shot interact with these rules? Does it allow you to threaten for the purpose of flanking, or only for the purpose of making attacks of opportunity, or is there even such a distinction between these two types of threatening in the game?

Snapshot allows you to "provide a flank", that is let another character that is making a melee attack while positioned appropriately gain the benefits of flanking. It does not let the character with Snapshot gain any benefits of flanking, as they are not making a melee attack.


master_marshmallow wrote:
This much is clear to me, an actual question here, how does Snap Shot interact with these rules? Does it allow you to threaten for the purpose of flanking, or only for the purpose of making attacks of opportunity, or is there even such a distinction between these two types of threatening in the game?

There is still a question about Snap Shot, but I think we have some idea about intent.

Snap Shot allows you to threaten for any reason threatening is relevant. So, you can make AoO with Snap Shot. Additionally, that you threaten means your ally standing across from you gets to benefit from flanking (because flanking is defined as having an opposite ally threatening the same enemy).

What there's not explicit answer on is whether Snap Shot then would allow you be considered flanking yourself. As it stands now without a FAQ stating otherwise, the answer is no because flanking requires a melee attack. Even though you threaten with Snap Shot, it's still not a melee attack. And the indication I get from Mark's is that this is how it is intended to function, at least at this point.


fretgod99 wrote:
Are you making a melee attack? If not, then (absent something like Enfilading Fire, etc.) flanking isn't going to be relevant anyway, so just go ahead and stop.

This statement assumes flanking is only melee, something not all agree with.

fretgod99 wrote:

Chalk up some of this to unfortunately imprecise wording. You can't have two people actually attacking at the same time. So, literal "attackers", no. But "attackers" in the sense that two people are threatening and able to attack, yeah. So, colloquial "attackers", yeah.

That's the positional requirement (usually).

Then, like you said, determine whether a relevant attack is being made (usually melee). If so, then whatever bonuses and benefits that might be derived from the fact that the defender is being threatened by two (usually) allied combatants who are able to make attacks (i.e., it's flanked).

That's the attack requirement.

That pretty well handles any issues surrounding flanking (and does so in accordance with the Developers seeming intent), including any subsequently written feats that people think cause problems.

EDIT: There's an idea that flanking (well, "flanked") is an implicit condition. I don't think I really would have a problem with that condition, so long as it's pretty clearly defined. It'd have to be clear that the condition only confers benefits on the attacker if the attacker is one of the flankers and is using an appropriate attack. But doing that would mean they'd likely have to reword a number of things - E.g., Gang Up would confer the flanked condition in the relevant situations, but only for melee attacks coming from the attacker with the Gang Up feat.

What's there now might be a bit more imprecise than would be nice, but clarifying that via FAQ is whole heaps easier than Errata'ing a whole mess of abilities to account for a now explicit condition.

You want colloquial for "attackers", why not for "flanking"? You mention an attack requirement. There is one to get a bonus on the attack. English usage (= colloquial) does not require it. Could you not say "My friends were flanking me on the way to the bar."? While a barfight might happen, and thus attacks will occur, it is not a requirement.

You don't want flanking to give a sneak attack bonus, and it does not. Remember, sneak attack is a class feature that provides a bonus to an attack upon a condition known as flanking. It works off the base combat rule of flanking. No extra feats needed. It does not check for melee.

Take the situation of two rogues (R) and an enemy (E): RER
Everyone has a pair of daggers. Do the rogues flank? Initial response is yes. Yet if either rogue throws a dagger, why loose sneak attack? They do not get +2, but they satisfy the positional requirement. They even still threaten in melee. Sure, they also provoke an AoO, but their AC and/or HP are up to the AoO so they go ahead.

If flanking requires melee, then no sneak attack. But that requirement is lacking in the "When in doubt..." paragraph that affirms the flanking condition based on a simple test.

/cevah


master_marshmallow wrote:

So, in order to threaten you must be wielding a melee weapon and be within range. While threatening you are only considered threatening with that melee weapon. If an ally is in position opposite the opponent then you flank that opponent. Only when making an attack with the weapon that threatens are you considered flanking and gain the +2 bonus on attack rolls.

Feats exist that assist in expanding the positions in which you can stand to flank, but you must still attack with your threatening weapon to be flanking and gain the +2.

This much is clear to me, an actual question here, how does Snap Shot interact with these rules? Does it allow you to threaten for the purpose of flanking, or only for the purpose of making attacks of opportunity, or is there even such a distinction between these two types of threatening in the game?

What is the text that requires the attack to be made with the threatening weapon?

I see text for melee and getting +2, but not the weapon that threatens.

Edit: dagger held, but attack with an unarmed strike. The latter does not threaten, and is a melee attack. Why won't it get the flanking bonus?

/cevah


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
I have the sneaking suspicion that the design team are looking at this thread and saying "what?! Oh, God, it's holding/wielding/attacking all over again!"
I think the Sunder thread is a closer analogy.

I don't remember that one: might be before my time.

My 2 cp on the matter: if two allies are on opposite sides of an enemy, and threatening that enemy, they are flanking that enemy. The benefits and any rider effects associated with flanking will only occur in the event of a melee attack (unless an ability explicitly allows flanking with ranged attacks).

This is the only answer that actually makes sense. If you only apply it during the melee attack, it's actually impossible to flank, by RAW:

Quote:
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers.

Since only one character can attack at any time, it's actually impossible to have two attackers.

Long and short: you're a flanker if your flanking a flanked target.

Pretty much.

Chalk up some of this to unfortunately imprecise wording. You can't have two people actually attacking at the same time. So, literal "attackers", no. But "attackers" in the sense that two people are threatening and able to attack, yeah. So, colloquial "attackers", yeah.

That's the positional requirement (usually).

Then, like you said, determine whether a relevant attack is being made (usually melee). If so, then whatever bonuses and benefits that might be derived from the fact that the defender is being threatened by two (usually) allied combatants who are able to make attacks (i.e., it's flanked).

That's the attack requirement.

That pretty well handles any issues surrounding flanking (and does so in accordance with the Developers seeming intent), including any subsequently written feats that people think cause problems.

EDIT: There's an idea that flanking (well, "flanked") is an...

the problem is as i;ve said, that is not the issue.

sneak attack adds damage dice if the target is flanked, plain and simple, a rogue with a knife is flanking the target, and then casts a ray attack, the ray attack by SNEAK ATTACK'S definition get's bonus damage. as there is no differentiation between the method to gain flanking and the tool being used(such that you can get sneak attack dice on a unarmed strike to knock them out, or shoot him with a pistol).

anyway, there is little reason a ranged weapon balance wise could not flank, you're still 5 ft away and eating an AoO.


Cevah wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

So, in order to threaten you must be wielding a melee weapon and be within range. While threatening you are only considered threatening with that melee weapon. If an ally is in position opposite the opponent then you flank that opponent. Only when making an attack with the weapon that threatens are you considered flanking and gain the +2 bonus on attack rolls.

Feats exist that assist in expanding the positions in which you can stand to flank, but you must still attack with your threatening weapon to be flanking and gain the +2.

This much is clear to me, an actual question here, how does Snap Shot interact with these rules? Does it allow you to threaten for the purpose of flanking, or only for the purpose of making attacks of opportunity, or is there even such a distinction between these two types of threatening in the game?

What is the text that requires the attack to be made with the threatening weapon?

I see text for melee and getting +2, but not the weapon that threatens.

Edit: dagger held, but attack with an unarmed strike. The latter does not threaten, and is a melee attack. Why won't it get the flanking bonus?

/cevah

Because generally you threaten with any attack that you can make. The issue you have with unarmed strikes is one that is a separate issue all together. Because unarmed strikes do not threaten, yet they get flanking is an inconsistency.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Cevah wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

So, in order to threaten you must be wielding a melee weapon and be within range. While threatening you are only considered threatening with that melee weapon. If an ally is in position opposite the opponent then you flank that opponent. Only when making an attack with the weapon that threatens are you considered flanking and gain the +2 bonus on attack rolls.

Feats exist that assist in expanding the positions in which you can stand to flank, but you must still attack with your threatening weapon to be flanking and gain the +2.

This much is clear to me, an actual question here, how does Snap Shot interact with these rules? Does it allow you to threaten for the purpose of flanking, or only for the purpose of making attacks of opportunity, or is there even such a distinction between these two types of threatening in the game?

What is the text that requires the attack to be made with the threatening weapon?

I see text for melee and getting +2, but not the weapon that threatens.

Edit: dagger held, but attack with an unarmed strike. The latter does not threaten, and is a melee attack. Why won't it get the flanking bonus?

/cevah

Because generally you threaten with any attack that you can make. The issue you have with unarmed strikes is one that is a separate issue all together. Because unarmed strikes do not threaten, yet they get flanking is an inconsistency.

there isn't actually any reference to threatening with regards to flanking too. (i should say in regards to gaining the bonus)


Cevah wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Are you making a melee attack? If not, then (absent something like Enfilading Fire, etc.) flanking isn't going to be relevant anyway, so just go ahead and stop.
This statement assumes flanking is only melee, something not all agree with.

The Developers seem to, though. And frankly that's all I really care about.

The way I've walked through it makes sense and falls in line with how the Developers appear to intend this to be handled. I'm comfortable with that.

As for colloquially using "attackers", if it's not colloquial for attackers, then even the language you rely on doesn't make sense. Can't have two people attacking at the same time, which is actually the language used in the flank bit you keep referencing. So even your position completely fails if we're being strict.

And as I've mentioned many a time, even if you want "flanked" to be a pseudo condition, there's still the whole "relevant attack" bit. Even if you don't accept it, the Developers appear to intend something along thise lines. So again, I'm perfectly happy with where I stand on this. It appears to be pretty close to where the Developers stand, if it's not the same place.


Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Cevah wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

So, in order to threaten you must be wielding a melee weapon and be within range. While threatening you are only considered threatening with that melee weapon. If an ally is in position opposite the opponent then you flank that opponent. Only when making an attack with the weapon that threatens are you considered flanking and gain the +2 bonus on attack rolls.

Feats exist that assist in expanding the positions in which you can stand to flank, but you must still attack with your threatening weapon to be flanking and gain the +2.

This much is clear to me, an actual question here, how does Snap Shot interact with these rules? Does it allow you to threaten for the purpose of flanking, or only for the purpose of making attacks of opportunity, or is there even such a distinction between these two types of threatening in the game?

What is the text that requires the attack to be made with the threatening weapon?

I see text for melee and getting +2, but not the weapon that threatens.

Edit: dagger held, but attack with an unarmed strike. The latter does not threaten, and is a melee attack. Why won't it get the flanking bonus?

/cevah

Because generally you threaten with any attack that you can make. The issue you have with unarmed strikes is one that is a separate issue all together. Because unarmed strikes do not threaten, yet they get flanking is an inconsistency.
there isn't actually any reference to threatening with regards to flanking too. (i should say in regards to gaining the bonus)

Your position would allow a Rogue to get sneak attack because his unarmed commoner friend is standing opposite the enemy.

I cannot in any way reconcile that with the rules as they appear intended to function.


fretgod99 wrote:

Your position would allow a Rogue to get sneak attack because his unarmed commoner friend is standing opposite the enemy.

I cannot in any way reconcile that with the rules as they appear intended to function.

And the 7 Str wizard holding a dagger is so much more of a threat?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Cevah wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

So, in order to threaten you must be wielding a melee weapon and be within range. While threatening you are only considered threatening with that melee weapon. If an ally is in position opposite the opponent then you flank that opponent. Only when making an attack with the weapon that threatens are you considered flanking and gain the +2 bonus on attack rolls.

Feats exist that assist in expanding the positions in which you can stand to flank, but you must still attack with your threatening weapon to be flanking and gain the +2.

This much is clear to me, an actual question here, how does Snap Shot interact with these rules? Does it allow you to threaten for the purpose of flanking, or only for the purpose of making attacks of opportunity, or is there even such a distinction between these two types of threatening in the game?

What is the text that requires the attack to be made with the threatening weapon?

I see text for melee and getting +2, but not the weapon that threatens.

Edit: dagger held, but attack with an unarmed strike. The latter does not threaten, and is a melee attack. Why won't it get the flanking bonus?

/cevah

Because generally you threaten with any attack that you can make. The issue you have with unarmed strikes is one that is a separate issue all together. Because unarmed strikes do not threaten, yet they get flanking is an inconsistency.
there isn't actually any reference to threatening with regards to flanking too. (i should say in regards to gaining the bonus)

Your position would allow a Rogue to get sneak attack because his unarmed commoner friend is standing opposite the enemy.

I cannot in any way reconcile that with the rules as they appear intended to function.

as i stated like 50 times now, it's because sneak attack IS NOT GENERATED FROM YOUR WEAPON ATTACK, but THE ROGUE.

thus it simply scans for if you flank a target, which you do, and if you made an attack for them, which you did. the class ability makes no mention of limiting it to melee for the sneak dice on a flank, and you can attack with different methods than melee while flanking a target.

you say it doesn't work because flanking only works on melee, but I simply say that sneak attack isn't applying flanking(so there's no reason to check if you're making a melee or what ever attack), it is applying something separate due to the fact that your character is providing a flank with another ally.


RumpinRufus wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

Your position would allow a Rogue to get sneak attack because his unarmed commoner friend is standing opposite the enemy.

I cannot in any way reconcile that with the rules as they appear intended to function.

And the 7 Str wizard holding a dagger is so much more of a threat?

Uh, yes. The Wizard is holding a dagger. The unarmed commoner isn't. Wielding a weapon is the very definition of threatening.


Bandw2 wrote:

as i stated like 50 times now, it's because sneak attack IS NOT GENERATED FROM YOUR WEAPON ATTACK, but THE ROGUE.

thus it simply scans for if you flank a target, which you do, and if you made an attack for them, which you did. the class ability makes no mention of limiting it to melee for the sneak dice on a flank, and you can attack with different methods than melee while flanking a target.

you say it doesn't work because flanking only works on melee, but I simply say that sneak attack isn't applying flanking(so there's no reason to check if you're making a melee or what ever attack), it is applying something separate due to the fact that your character is providing a flank with another ally.

How is the Rogue's enemy "flanked" when both allies aren't simultaneously attacking? The language you're segregating and placing so much importance on requires two attackers for the opponent to be flanked. So how is the Rogue getting that from the unarmed commoner? How are they attacking at the same time? Or is that not what that means? If they're not required to attack at the same time, aren't you violating "RAW"? And if you're violating that RAW to make your interpretation work, doesn't that undercut your argument a bit that, by RAW, "flanked" is something completely separate from the attack bonus and threatening bit?

And in the end, though sneak attack isn't generated by the weapon, it is generated by qualifying for flanking. And qualifying for flanking is dependent upon the type of attack you're making. The Rogue's ability isn't analyzed in a vacuum.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

as i stated like 50 times now, it's because sneak attack IS NOT GENERATED FROM YOUR WEAPON ATTACK, but THE ROGUE.

thus it simply scans for if you flank a target, which you do, and if you made an attack for them, which you did. the class ability makes no mention of limiting it to melee for the sneak dice on a flank, and you can attack with different methods than melee while flanking a target.

you say it doesn't work because flanking only works on melee, but I simply say that sneak attack isn't applying flanking(so there's no reason to check if you're making a melee or what ever attack), it is applying something separate due to the fact that your character is providing a flank with another ally.

How is the Rogue's enemy "flanked" when both allies aren't simultaneously attacking? The language you're segregating and placing so much importance on requires two attackers for the opponent to be flanked. So how is the Rogue getting that from the unarmed commoner? How are they attacking at the same time? Or is that not what that means? If they're not required to attack at the same time, aren't you violating "RAW"? And if you're violating that RAW to make your interpretation work, doesn't that undercut your argument a bit that, by RAW, "flanked" is something completely separate from the attack bonus and threatening bit?

And in the end, though sneak attack isn't generated by the weapon, it is generated by qualifying for flanking. And qualifying for flanking is dependent upon the type of attack you're making. The Rogue's ability isn't analyzed in a vacuum.

you're confusing me with someone else, I haven't really been using much of the evidence other people have been using. MY evidense is that things like assault leader and rogues sneak attack, are worded in a way where they expect someone to be flanking at times other than an attack. Thus, the game works best when used in this manner. (i'm applying Occam's razor in that I assume the least about the rules when they work how they appear to be worded)

then that flanking bonus is only applied during melee, but that does not stop a character from generating a flank when attacking with other weapons.

sneak attack doesn't look to see if you're "flanking" it looks to see if you flank the enemy. the wording is different because it means implied the target of flank is different. flanking implies it is an action you are doing, while judging if someone flanks a target is a state of the target, the subject of sentence is different. basically, "flanking" is an action, "flanks" is a state.

so you're telling me someone with a dagger next to an enemy with an ally across from said enemy, does not provide a flank on that target? because earlier the Devs said that flanks is analogous to "providing a flank"? because sneak attack doesn't judge or care if you are using the method that provides a flank, just that you are providing.


No, the character provides flanking, but does not flank itself (assuming you're talking about the OP's idea of using a ranged weapon to actually attack). Providing flank and flanking are not the same. This is what Mark said here.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Crash_00 wrote:
bbangerter wrote:


You're ignoring one critical detail. The archer in the scenario provided has the snap shot feat, allowing him to threaten while using a bow. In order to flank you must threaten. The archer in the scenario therefore meets the requirements.

You only have to threaten to provide the bonus by RAW. Seriously, check it out, by mentions of threatening are in direct reference to the Flanking Bonus, which was separated from the flank concept by a designer.

Now, I mention in my first post that it is implied that you need to threaten, and I still agree with that, but it isn't actually stated. Keep in mind, by RAW the person attacking doesn't have to threaten to get the bonus on his attack roll either.

Does a rogue, wielding a dagger in one hand and in the correct position flank his target while firing a hand crossbow according to Mark's quote? (Assuming someone is opposite him in the correct position)

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.

This is the exact situation you are referring to, where we are told that providing flank and being flanking are not necessarily one and the same.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When you make an attack, do you receive the benefits of flanking (of which, a rogue's sneak attack is certainly a benefit of flanking. As is the +2 to your attack)?

First, are you attacking with a melee weapon?
Second, do you have an ally that threatens your target (or, more precisely, does your target have another enemy which threatens it)?
Third, is your ally standing directly opposite of you from your target*?

If you answered "no" to any of the above questions, you do not receive the benefits of flanking.

* There are feats and/or class abilities which might alter the square you or your ally can be in to satisfy this requirement.

Certainly, there may be exceptions, but I can garuntee with absolute certainty that every "scenario" that has been mentioned so far in this thread can be properly adjudicated by applying these three questions.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bandw2 wrote:
then that flanking bonus is only applied during melee, but that does not stop a character from generating a flank when attacking with other weapons.

This is the easiest way to boil it down.

If making a Sneak Attack and you obtained the +2 for Flanking your opponent, then you may add Sneak Attack dice. If you did not receive the +2 either because you are not flanking or you made an attack with a non-melee weapon, you do not receive Sneak Attack dice.

Nothing RAW reject this.

Edit: This subject has came up at least once before regarding Ranged Flanking and Sneak Attack. But now we have Developer comments to give us hints on which way is the correct interpretation of RAW. Unfortunately, those that read it as Ranged Flanking is possible don't accept this. So the only way I see this subject put to bed is via a FAQ answer. I wouldn't even know a way to fix it via Errata? Maybe an exception "You can't gain Flanking with a non-melee weapon" but even then someone would say "But I'm flanking because I'm holding this dagger and attacking with this ranged weapon".

Liberty's Edge

James Risner wrote:


Edit: This subject has came up at least once before regarding Ranged Flanking and Sneak Attack. But now we have Developer comments to give us hints on which way is the correct interpretation of RAW. Unfortunately, those that read it as Ranged Flanking is possible don't accept this. So the only way I see this subject put to bed is via a FAQ answer. I wouldn't even know a way to fix it via Errata? Maybe an exception "You can't gain Flanking with a non-melee weapon" but even then someone would say "But I'm flanking because I'm holding this dagger and attacking with this ranged weapon".

Holding a dagger while making a ranged attack is ultimately a moot point, because it is all predicated upon whether or not you are making a melee attack.

More importantly, this argument is even more irrelevant because determining flanking is based upon whether or not your ally threatens your target, not whether or not you threaten your target—in which you're attacking with a melee weapon anyways, so the point is doubly moot.

If you're weilding a dagger, and you have a buddy flanking your opponent, and you decide to throw the dagger at your target instead of stabbing it, you do not receive the benefits of flanking your target...because the target is not flanked at that point...because you are not making a melee attack. No flank, no +2 to attack, no sneak attack bonus.


James Risner wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
then that flanking bonus is only applied during melee, but that does not stop a character from generating a flank when attacking with other weapons.

This is the easiest way to boil it down.

If making a Sneak Attack and you obtained the +2 for Flanking your opponent, then you may add Sneak Attack dice. If you did not receive the +2 either because you are not flanking or you made an attack with a non-melee weapon, you do not receive Sneak Attack dice.

Nothing RAW reject this.

Edit: This subject has came up at least once before regarding Ranged Flanking and Sneak Attack. But now we have Developer comments to give us hints on which way is the correct interpretation of RAW. Unfortunately, those that read it as Ranged Flanking is possible don't accept this. So the only way I see this subject put to bed is via a FAQ answer. I wouldn't even know a way to fix it via Errata? Maybe an exception "You can't gain Flanking with a non-melee weapon" but even then someone would say "But I'm flanking because I'm holding this dagger and attacking with this ranged weapon".

Besides the Gang Up FAQ, nothing in RAW supports it, either.

An appropriate errata would be "or when the rogue makes a melee attack while flanking her target" instead of "or when the rogue flanks her target".

Liberty's Edge

RumpinRufus wrote:
Besides the Gang Up FAQ, nothing in RAW supports it, either.

Except for the actual words printed in the book, but hey, who needs to use the actual rules in a rules debate.


HangarFlying wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
Besides the Gang Up FAQ, nothing in RAW supports it, either.
Except for the actual words printed in the book, but hey, who needs to use the actual rules in a rules debate.

Please point out where in the rules a creature loses its designation as "flanking" when it makes a ranged attack. Because the rules treat creatures as "flanking" if they threaten opposite sides of another creatures, and nowhere in the rules does it state "during a ranged attack, a creature is no longer considered to be flanking."

Liberty's Edge

Please point me to the rules that allow someone armed with a ranged weapon to be able to provide flanking.

I'll give you a hint: there isn't any. You don't "lose" flanking when you have a ranged weapon because you never had it in the first place.

EDIT: I mean, really, this isn't rocket science. I provided a checklist that is literally taken directly from the rules. Where in the rules for flanking does it say that you get it if you attack with a ranged weapon? It. Doesn't.


HangarFlying wrote:
Please point me to the rules that allow someone armed with a ranged weapon to be able to provide flanking.

Sure thing!

Flanking wrote:

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.

So as long as a creature is threatening (such as with a melee weapon, or the Snap Shot feat,) the rules explicitly state that the creature can "flank an opponent".


Yeah, but the same rules also say you have to make a melee attack...
Or are we ignoring that?


HangarFlying wrote:

When you make an attack, do you receive the benefits of flanking (of which, a rogue's sneak attack is certainly a benefit of flanking. As is the +2 to your attack)?

First, are you attacking with a melee weapon?
Second, do you have an ally that threatens your target (or, more precisely, does your target have another enemy which threatens it)?
Third, is your ally standing directly opposite of you from your target*?

If you answered "no" to any of the above questions, you do not receive the benefits of flanking.

* There are feats and/or class abilities which might alter the square you or your ally can be in to satisfy this requirement.

Certainly, there may be exceptions, but I can garuntee with absolute certainty that every "scenario" that has been mentioned so far in this thread can be properly adjudicated by applying these three questions.

Per my recent example, a rogue throwing one of two daggers, while still threatening melee with the other gets Sneak Attack but not Flanking Bonus. So I answered no to melee, yet still get Sneak Attack, because it does not require melee.

Sneak Attack cannot be a benefit of flanking or else everyone would get it. It is a class feature that checks a condition to determine if a bonus is given. That condition does not include melee, or it would also deny Sneak Attack at range when the opponent is flat footed.

/cevah


master_marshmallow wrote:

Yeah, but the same rules also say you have to make a melee attack...

Or are we ignoring that?

Incorrect. What the rules actually say is that when making a melee attack, you receive a +2 flanking bonus.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Cevah wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

So, in order to threaten you must be wielding a melee weapon and be within range. While threatening you are only considered threatening with that melee weapon. If an ally is in position opposite the opponent then you flank that opponent. Only when making an attack with the weapon that threatens are you considered flanking and gain the +2 bonus on attack rolls.

Feats exist that assist in expanding the positions in which you can stand to flank, but you must still attack with your threatening weapon to be flanking and gain the +2.

This much is clear to me, an actual question here, how does Snap Shot interact with these rules? Does it allow you to threaten for the purpose of flanking, or only for the purpose of making attacks of opportunity, or is there even such a distinction between these two types of threatening in the game?

What is the text that requires the attack to be made with the threatening weapon?

I see text for melee and getting +2, but not the weapon that threatens.

Edit: dagger held, but attack with an unarmed strike. The latter does not threaten, and is a melee attack. Why won't it get the flanking bonus?

/cevah

Because generally you threaten with any attack that you can make. The issue you have with unarmed strikes is one that is a separate issue all together. Because unarmed strikes do not threaten, yet they get flanking is an inconsistency.

Whips are melee, yet do not threaten. Would you deny them flanking also?

Still waiting on that text.

/cevah


RumpinRufus wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Please point me to the rules that allow someone armed with a ranged weapon to be able to provide flanking.

Sure thing!

Flanking wrote:

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.

So as long as a creature is threatening (such as with a melee weapon, or the Snap Shot feat,) the rules explicitly state that the creature can "flank an opponent".

Nope. See, you've made a big stink about the fact that the "flanked" section is completely separate from everything that comes before and comes after. Neither threatening nor the flanking bonus are mentioned in the section regarding checking for being "flanked". This is pretty much the entire basis of your argument.

So you don't get to now say, "Look. It mentions 'threatening' in the same sections." Either threatening and melee attacks are relevant to the entire section (including your portion about what defines "flanked") or they are not. You cannot have it both ways.

And since the Gang Up FAQ and Developer statements support that providing flanking and flanking aren't the same thing (meaning simply threatening isn't enough for you to get flank), there's not much else to discuss here (particularly since the Developer comment included specifically addressing whether someone with Snapshot can flank). If you have something new to add, feel free. But until then, we're pretty much just rehashing the same positions.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:

No, the character provides flanking, but does not flank itself (assuming you're talking about the OP's idea of using a ranged weapon to actually attack). Providing flank and flanking are not the same. This is what Mark said here.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Crash_00 wrote:
bbangerter wrote:


You're ignoring one critical detail. The archer in the scenario provided has the snap shot feat, allowing him to threaten while using a bow. In order to flank you must threaten. The archer in the scenario therefore meets the requirements.

You only have to threaten to provide the bonus by RAW. Seriously, check it out, by mentions of threatening are in direct reference to the Flanking Bonus, which was separated from the flank concept by a designer.

Now, I mention in my first post that it is implied that you need to threaten, and I still agree with that, but it isn't actually stated. Keep in mind, by RAW the person attacking doesn't have to threaten to get the bonus on his attack roll either.

Does a rogue, wielding a dagger in one hand and in the correct position flank his target while firing a hand crossbow according to Mark's quote? (Assuming someone is opposite him in the correct position)

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.
This is the exact situation you are referring to, where we are told that providing flank and being flanking are not...

if you just need to provide a flank to benefit from assault leader, then it also allows you to benefit from sneak attack, which as i said, makes no mention of only allowing the damage dice be applied to the flanking method.

if you can't use a provided flank to trigger sneak attack dice assault leader also never works. it's pretty simple, the game simply works better and requires less non-written rules under this method.


Cevah wrote:

Per my recent example, a rogue throwing one of two daggers, while still threatening melee with the other gets Sneak Attack but not Flanking Bonus. So I answered no to melee, yet still get Sneak Attack, because it does not require melee.

Sneak Attack cannot be a benefit of flanking or else everyone would get it. It is a class feature that checks a condition to determine if a bonus is given. That condition does not include melee, or it would also deny Sneak Attack at range when the opponent is flat footed.

/cevah

Sneak attack is an ability that is (in part) triggered by flanking. Ergo, being able to sneak attack is a benefit provided by flanking one's enemy.

Because it is triggered by flanking does not mean it is available to everyone; only people with the class ability.

Sneak attacking someone who is flat-footed is completely irrelevant to this discussion. So is sneak attacking someone who is denied their dexterity bonus.


fretgod99 wrote:
Cevah wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Are you making a melee attack? If not, then (absent something like Enfilading Fire, etc.) flanking isn't going to be relevant anyway, so just go ahead and stop.
This statement assumes flanking is only melee, something not all agree with.

The Developers seem to, though. And frankly that's all I really care about.

The way I've walked through it makes sense and falls in line with how the Developers appear to intend this to be handled. I'm comfortable with that.

As for colloquially using "attackers", if it's not colloquial for attackers, then even the language you rely on doesn't make sense. Can't have two people attacking at the same time, which is actually the language used in the flank bit you keep referencing. So even your position completely fails if we're being strict.

And as I've mentioned many a time, even if you want "flanked" to be a pseudo condition, there's still the whole "relevant attack" bit. Even if you don't accept it, the Developers appear to intend something along thise lines. So again, I'm perfectly happy with where I stand on this. It appears to be pretty close to where the Developers stand, if it's not the same place.

Seems to be clear what you think is RAI. However, we are talking RAW. I also think RAI is flanking is melee only, but the actual text does not say that.

I think you are correct in the colloquially use of "attackers", but think that the use of separate paragraphs means that there is a melee bonus defined in one and a condition defined in the next, and that I don't need the bonus to get the condition. This separation is driven by standard English writing rules about why a new paragraph happens.

/cevah

251 to 300 of 645 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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.