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


Rules Questions

301 to 350 of 645 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
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.

right, it checks to see if you are flanking, not flanking provides a sneak attack... we don;t have a section under flanking "if your character has the sneak attack class feature they gain extra dice as listed in their stat block, etc." we instead have sneak attack looking for if she flanks the target.

so a dual wielding rogue with 2 daggers is threatening and makes a ranged thrown attack against the target. she never suddenly loses the fact that she flanks the target and sneak attack the ability in question, only needs that for the dice, you are consistently confusing sneak attack for having the same requirements as flanking, which it does not, as it is possible to be able to flank and have ranged abilities at the same time.


But you aren't flanking if you make a ranged attack, only a melee attack.

You can provide flanking, but the rules clearly state that you have to be making a melee attack to be considered flanking and get the +2.
If you cannot get the +2, then you must not be flanking.
If you are not flanking then you cannot add your sneak attack dice.


fretgod99 wrote:
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.

The are relevant because they show the Sneak Attack rules do Not have a melee requirement.

/cevah


Bandw2 wrote:
so a dual wielding rogue with 2 daggers is threatening and makes a ranged thrown attack against the target. she never suddenly loses the fact that she flanks the target and sneak attack the ability in question, only needs that for the dice, you are consistently confusing sneak attack for having the same requirements as flanking, which it does not, as it is possible to be able to flank and have ranged abilities at the same time.

Not sure what you are saying. Can you rephrase?

/cevah


master_marshmallow wrote:

But you aren't flanking if you make a ranged attack, only a melee attack.

You can provide flanking, but the rules clearly state that you have to be making a melee attack to be considered flanking and get the +2.
If you cannot get the +2, then you must not be flanking.
If you are not flanking then you cannot add your sneak attack dice.

This assumes flanking requires melee, despite being described in a separate paragraph. The +2 is tied to melee. I don't agree that, by RAW, flanking is.

/cevah


master_marshmallow wrote:
If you cannot get the +2, then you must not be flanking.

Improved Back to Back

Assault Leader

Enfilading Fire

Topple Foe

Amplified Rage

Underfoot Assault

Please read these abilities and reconsider your position.


Despite the language that says it is?
My friend I believe you are confusing RAW and RAI.
RAW is clear, you have to be making a melee attack to gain the benefits of flanking. In order to gain those benefits, someone has to threaten in the other side.

The only thing in question here is who qualifies as that other guy.


master_marshmallow wrote:

Despite the language that says it is?

My friend I believe you are confusing RAW and RAI.
RAW is clear, you have to be making a melee attack to gain the benefits of flanking. In order to gain those benefits, someone has to threaten in the other side.

The only thing in question here is who qualifies as that other guy.

But Sneak Attack is not a benefit of flanking. It does not require that +2 bonus. Since many believe RAW makes a separation and many do not, RAW is not clear.

/cevah


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

But you aren't flanking if you make a ranged attack, only a melee attack.

You can provide flanking, but the rules clearly state that you have to be making a melee attack to be considered flanking and get the +2.
If you cannot get the +2, then you must not be flanking.
If you are not flanking then you cannot add your sneak attack dice.

then once again portions of the rules such as assault leader don't work. you NEED to be able to be considered flanking when not performing any actions for various parts of the rules to work.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Cevah wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

so a dual wielding rogue with 2 daggers is threatening and makes a ranged thrown attack against the target.

She never suddenly loses the fact that she flanks the target, and sneak attack the ability in question, only needs that for the damage dice.

you are consistently confusing sneak attack for having the same requirements as flanking, which it does not, as it is possible to flank and to perform a ranged ability at the same time.

Not sure what you are saying. Can you rephrase?

/cevah


Bandw2 wrote:
Cevah wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

so a dual wielding rogue with 2 daggers is threatening and makes a ranged thrown attack against the target.

She never suddenly loses the fact that she flanks the target, and sneak attack the ability in question, only needs that for the damage dice.

you are consistently confusing sneak attack for having the same requirements as flanking, which it does not, as it is possible to flank and to perform a ranged ability at the same time.

Not sure what you are saying. Can you rephrase?

/cevah

I think I understand you. However, *I* am not the one saying this. :-)

Edit: My example was to illustrate that difference.

/cevah


Gotta go now. Will catch up later.

/cevah


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

so a dual wielding rogue with 2 daggers is threatening and makes a ranged thrown attack against the target.

She never suddenly loses the fact that she flanks the target, and sneak attack the ability in question, only needs that for the damage dice.

you are consistently confusing sneak attack for having the same requirements as flanking, which it does not, as it is possible to flank and to perform a ranged ability at the same time.

Not sure what you are saying. Can you rephrase?

/cevah

I think I understand you. However, *I* am not the one saying this. :-)

Edit: My example was to illustrate that difference.

/cevah

i noticed, and augmented it in my own wording.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Only one post in this thread is definitely and inarguably true, post 204.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Only one post in this thread is definitely and inarguably true, post 204.

always keeping us guessing...


Cevah wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
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.

The are relevant because they show the Sneak Attack rules do Not have a melee requirement.

/cevah

They don't. But that's irrelevant if flanking does. If you can't flank without making a melee attack, you can't apply sneak attack via flanking if you're not making a melee attack.


I don't see the point in going around in circles. Nobody is posting anything new. Might as well just wait until a FAQ is posted. If things change, that's cool. Certainly wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. But until then, I'm playing with melee being required, particularly because of the Gang Up FAQ.

Cheers!


fretgod99 wrote:
If you can't flank without making a melee attack, you can't apply sneak attack via flanking if you're not making a melee attack.

How do you explain the following abilities

Improved Back to Back

Assault Leader

Enfilading Fire

Topple Foe

Amplified Rage

Underfoot Assault

The claim "you can't flank without making a melee attack" is simply not supported by the rules.

(My advice - go back to arguing on the basis of the Gang Up FAQ. At least there, you have a leg to stand on.)

edit: hahah, ninja'ed


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
RumpinRufus wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
If you can't flank without making a melee attack, you can't apply sneak attack via flanking if you're not making a melee attack.

How do you explain the following abilities

Improved Back to Back

Assault Leader

Enfilading Fire

Topple Foe

Amplified Rage

Underfoot Assault

The claim "you can't flank without making a melee attack" is simply not supported by the rules.

(My advice - go back to arguing on the basis of the Gang Up FAQ. At least there, you have a leg to stand on.)

edit: hahah, ninja'ed

i'm just going to quote this every time anyone claims you can only flank during a melee attack.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cevah wrote:
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.

They do no say that with your interpretation, but they do with my interpretation (and others.)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Mark Seifter wrote:
Only one post in this thread is definitely and inarguably true, post 204.

You don't think a FAQ response would get the stars to align?

Liberty's Edge

Cevah wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

But you aren't flanking if you make a ranged attack, only a melee attack.

You can provide flanking, but the rules clearly state that you have to be making a melee attack to be considered flanking and get the +2.
If you cannot get the +2, then you must not be flanking.
If you are not flanking then you cannot add your sneak attack dice.

This assumes flanking requires melee, despite being described in a separate paragraph. The +2 is tied to melee. I don't agree that, by RAW, flanking is.

/cevah

Separate paragraph? As far as I can read, and I'm sure you read as well, it's all contained in the same sentance. The very first one to be exact.


HangarFlying wrote:
Cevah wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

But you aren't flanking if you make a ranged attack, only a melee attack.

You can provide flanking, but the rules clearly state that you have to be making a melee attack to be considered flanking and get the +2.
If you cannot get the +2, then you must not be flanking.
If you are not flanking then you cannot add your sneak attack dice.

This assumes flanking requires melee, despite being described in a separate paragraph. The +2 is tied to melee. I don't agree that, by RAW, flanking is.

/cevah

Separate paragraph? As far as I can read, and I'm sure you read as well, it's all contained in the same sentance. The very first one to be exact.

The first sentence describes when you get a "flanking bonus".

The second paragraph describes when you "flank an opponent" and when the opponent is "flanked".

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
If you can't flank without making a melee attack, you can't apply sneak attack via flanking if you're not making a melee attack.

How do you explain the following abilities

Improved Back to Back

Assault Leader

Enfilading Fire

Topple Foe

Amplified Rage

Underfoot Assault

The claim "you can't flank without making a melee attack" is simply not supported by the rules.

(My advice - go back to arguing on the basis of the Gang Up FAQ. At least there, you have a leg to stand on.)

edit: hahah, ninja'ed

i'm just going to quote this every time anyone claims you can only flank during a melee attack.

I mean, you do realize that the whole point of the thread is from the point of view of someone making the attack? Specifically, the question had to do with whether or not sneak attack from flanking is applied to ranged attacks.

I completely agree that someone can be considered to be in a flanked position when it is not their turn: the opponents are in a legal position and are wielding weapons that threaten them—in 99.9% of the cases, this means that they will be equipped with melee weapons and are opposite from one another.

This point in no way invalidates the fact that when you make an attack, it must be with a melee weapon to receive the benefits of flanking. Because the rules tell you what kind of attacks receive the benefit of flanking, and I don't see the word "ranged" anywhere within the flanking rules...but I do see the word "melee".


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
HangarFlying wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
If you can't flank without making a melee attack, you can't apply sneak attack via flanking if you're not making a melee attack.

How do you explain the following abilities

Improved Back to Back

Assault Leader

Enfilading Fire

Topple Foe

Amplified Rage

Underfoot Assault

The claim "you can't flank without making a melee attack" is simply not supported by the rules.

(My advice - go back to arguing on the basis of the Gang Up FAQ. At least there, you have a leg to stand on.)

edit: hahah, ninja'ed

i'm just going to quote this every time anyone claims you can only flank during a melee attack.

I mean, you do realize that the whole point of the thread is from the point of view of someone making the attack? Specifically, the question had to do with whether or not sneak attack from flanking is applied to ranged attacks.

I completely agree that someone can be considered to be in a flanked position when it is not their turn: the opponents are in a legal position and are wielding weapons that threaten them—in 99.9% of the cases, this means that they will be equipped with melee weapons and are opposite from one another.

This point in no way invalidates the fact that when you make an attack, it must be with a melee weapon to receive the benefits of flanking. Because the rules tell you what kind of attacks receive the benefit of flanking, and I don't see the word "ranged" anywhere within the flanking rules...but I do see the word "melee".

and that is the portion about the bonus, sneak attack doesn't care if your qualify for the bonus or if the attack qualifies for the flank, just that the ROGUE, WHOM THE CLASS FEATURE IS TIED TO, is flanking or not and if the attack hit. Then add damage to it, it makes no reference to flanking other than the character "flanks" a target, not that the attack be melee or receive the bonus.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bandw2 wrote:
and that is the portion about the bonus, sneak attack doesn't care if your qualify for the bonus

You have no rule that says that, you are interpreting the rules provided about melee flanking to allow ranged flanking. Plus you have a developer saying you are reading the rules incorrectly (wrong interpretation.)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:


and that is the portion about the bonus, sneak attack doesn't care if your qualify for the bonus or if the attack qualifies for the flank, just that the ROGUE, WHOM THE CLASS FEATURE IS TIED TO, is flanking or not and if the attack hit. Then add damage to it, it makes no reference to flanking other than the character "flanks" a target, not that the attack be melee or receive the bonus.

Well there is the catch, because when you are making an attack, flanking IS the bonus. You only get to add the sneak attack damage when you are making an attack, so all of this argument about "qualifying for flanking when not attacking" is a bit of a straw man argument—not "whether or not your target is flanked by two other allies", not "you're in a position to flank, but are not attacking", and certainly not "you're adjacent to an ally who is being flanked by enemies". No, it's "are YOU flanking your target when YOU attack".

So, when you are attacking, and you are flanking someone, you get a +2 to your attack. If something prevents you from getting a +2 to your attack (either an ally is not positioned properly, your ally is not threatening your target, and/or you are not making a melee attack), then YOU ARE NOT FLANKING YOUR TARGET. If you are a rogue and you are not flanking, you do not get to add your sneak attack damage.

EDIT: stupid iPad spacing issues.

Liberty's Edge

RumpinRufus wrote:


The second paragraph describes when you "flank an opponent" and when the opponent is "flanked".

In the CRB and the PRD that I am reading, the second paragraph is an explanation of the first paragraph if there were any confusion on how the first paragraph is derived. This is even noted by the first three words "[w]hen in doubt...".

That still doesn't change the fact that in order to add sneak attack damage, you must ATTACK. Which paragraph discusses making an attack, the first, or the second? And what does that paragraph say?

Suffice it to say, no where in the paragraph that talks about attacking—which we must invariably do if we want to add our sneak attack damage—does it mention anything about ranged attacks.


Bandw2 wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
If you can't flank without making a melee attack, you can't apply sneak attack via flanking if you're not making a melee attack.

How do you explain the following abilities

Improved Back to Back

Assault Leader

Enfilading Fire

Topple Foe

Amplified Rage

Underfoot Assault

The claim "you can't flank without making a melee attack" is simply not supported by the rules.

(My advice - go back to arguing on the basis of the Gang Up FAQ. At least there, you have a leg to stand on.)

edit: hahah, ninja'ed

i'm just going to quote this every time anyone claims you can only flank during a melee attack.

I don't see how any of those is a problem. They all work quite seamlessly with the process that has been posted more than once (and now by more than one person).

Since I explained how these sorts of things worked like six times, I'm just going to assume you all have been ignoring me.


HangarFlying wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:


The second paragraph describes when you "flank an opponent" and when the opponent is "flanked".

In the CRB and the PRD that I am reading, the second paragraph is an explanation of the first paragraph if there were any confusion on how the first paragraph is derived. This is even noted by the first three words "[w]hen in doubt...".

That still doesn't change the fact that in order to add sneak attack damage, you must ATTACK. Which paragraph discusses making an attack, the first, or the second? And what does that paragraph say?

Suffice it to say, no where in the paragraph that talks about attacking—which we must invariably do if we want to add our sneak attack damage—does it mention anything about ranged attacks.

I really don't understand how the second paragraph should be completely distinct from the first when the first ends with the thought on an allies' positions on opposite sides, and then the second paragraph simply continues and more thoroughly explains that same point. It's sort of hard to argues those as distinct things when they are so seemingly related.


fretgod99 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
If you can't flank without making a melee attack, you can't apply sneak attack via flanking if you're not making a melee attack.

How do you explain the following abilities

Improved Back to Back

Assault Leader

Enfilading Fire

Topple Foe

Amplified Rage

Underfoot Assault

The claim "you can't flank without making a melee attack" is simply not supported by the rules.

(My advice - go back to arguing on the basis of the Gang Up FAQ. At least there, you have a leg to stand on.)

edit: hahah, ninja'ed

i'm just going to quote this every time anyone claims you can only flank during a melee attack.

I don't see how any of those is a problem. They all work quite seamlessly with the process that has been posted more than once (and now by more than one person).

Since I explained how these sorts of things worked like six times, I'm just going to assume you all have been ignoring me.

Ignorance abounds in these threads.

Liberty's Edge

fretgod99 wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:


The second paragraph describes when you "flank an opponent" and when the opponent is "flanked".

In the CRB and the PRD that I am reading, the second paragraph is an explanation of the first paragraph if there were any confusion on how the first paragraph is derived. This is even noted by the first three words "[w]hen in doubt...".

That still doesn't change the fact that in order to add sneak attack damage, you must ATTACK. Which paragraph discusses making an attack, the first, or the second? And what does that paragraph say?

Suffice it to say, no where in the paragraph that talks about attacking—which we must invariably do if we want to add our sneak attack damage—does it mention anything about ranged attacks.

I really don't understand how the second paragraph should be completely distinct from the first when the first ends with the thought on an allies' positions on opposite sides, and then the second paragraph simply continues and more thoroughly explains that same point. It's sort of hard to argues those as distinct things when they are so seemingly related.

Cuz internetz?


Hrm... well, this is a huge number of posts. I think many people are either misunderstanding RumpinRufus' position or being a bit obstinate about it...

As I read it, the 'flanking' section's first paragraph states that melee attacks get a bonus to hit when attacking an opponent qualifies as flanked, referred to as a 'flanking bonus'.

The assumption many people are making is that this bonus is what defines flanking, which I believe to be incorrect; it is merely the relevant immediate bonus applicable to flanking.

The second paragraph of the 'flanking' section goes on to describe how you determine whether or not you are flanking an opponent; the criteria itself is only the positional basis.

Thus, I would conclude that ranged attacks can be made from a flanking position, but confer no to-hit benefits as a melee attack from that position would - such an attack would not receive a 'flanking bonus', despite the target being 'flanked'. In my opinion, this is a case of splitting hairs; the sneak attack ability in question again states merely that the rogue must be flanking the target, and does not state the she must be qualifying for the 'flanking bonus' implicitly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadMage wrote:

Hrm... well, this is a huge number of posts. I think many people are either misunderstanding RumpinRufus' position or being a bit obstinate about it...

As I read it, the 'flanking' section's first paragraph states that melee attacks get a bonus to hit when attacking an opponent qualifies as flanked, referred to as a 'flanking bonus'.

The assumption many people are making is that this bonus is what defines flanking, which I believe to be incorrect; it is merely the relevant immediate bonus applicable to flanking.

The second paragraph of the 'flanking' section goes on to describe how you determine whether or not you are flanking an opponent; the criteria itself is only the positional basis.

Thus, I would conclude that ranged attacks can be made from a flanking position, but confer no to-hit benefits as a melee attack from that position would - such an attack would not receive a 'flanking bonus', despite the target being 'flanked'. In my opinion, this is a case of splitting hairs; the sneak attack ability in question again states merely that the rogue must be flanking the target, and does not state the she must be qualifying for the 'flanking bonus' implicitly.

These are all new and well thought out points that haven't been addressed anywhere at all in the last seven pages of this thread. [/sarcasm]

Liberty's Edge

MadMage wrote:

Hrm... well, this is a huge number of posts. I think many people are either misunderstanding RumpinRufus' position or being a bit obstinate about it...

As I read it, the 'flanking' section's first paragraph states that melee attacks get a bonus to hit when attacking an opponent qualifies as flanked, referred to as a 'flanking bonus'.

The assumption many people are making is that this bonus is what defines flanking, which I believe to be incorrect; it is merely the relevant immediate bonus applicable to flanking.

The second paragraph of the 'flanking' section goes on to describe how you determine whether or not you are flanking an opponent; the criteria itself is only the positional basis.

Thus, I would conclude that ranged attacks can be made from a flanking position, but confer no to-hit benefits as a melee attack from that position would - such an attack would not receive a 'flanking bonus', despite the target being 'flanked'. In my opinion, this is a case of splitting hairs; the sneak attack ability in question again states merely that the rogue must be flanking the target, and does not state the she must be qualifying for the 'flanking bonus' implicitly.

Well, that's fine that you think that, but it flies against what the developers have indicated.

Furthermore, I really find it difficult to understand how one can come to the conclusion that the second paragraph is to be completely divorced from the first paragraph and treated as a wholly separate idea, rather than the notion that the second paragraph is an explanation supporting the first paragraph.

Finally, how can one be attacking a target, be flanking it, yet not get the flanking bonus?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

HangarFlying wrote:
MadMage wrote:
flanking' section's first paragraph ... is what defines flanking, which I believe to be incorrect

fine that you think that, but it flies against what the developers have indicated.

Furthermore, I really find it difficult to understand how one can come to the conclusion that the second paragraph is to be completely divorced from the first paragraph

Finally, how can one be attacking a target, be flanking it, yet not get the flanking bonus?

This is the virus one might call "One True RAW". It is the concept some have that they are in charge of all interpretations and if you don't share their interpretations of RAW then you are wrong.

This is especially frustrating when we know the RAW because we have had a developer tell us we are reading it wrong if we make an attack while flanking and don't add the +2 bonus, we are not flanking for that attack.

The rules tell us (as advised by a developer) that your attack is only a flanked attack if you gain the +2 bonus, which can only be gain via melee attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can two people get the flanking bonus at the exact same time? No. The flanking bonus only occurs when you make a melee attack. That is crystal clear.

Can two people flank at the same time? Yes. The second paragraph makes this crystal clear and gives us rules for determining when two people flank.

Therefore, the flanking bonus cannot define what it means to flank. You can console this as flanking and flank being different definitions, or you can resolve to see the flanking bonus as part of flanking, but not the sole definition. Either way, you can flank without getting the bonus.

The Rogue's Sneak Attack ability asks if he/she flanks, not if he/she is flanking. So, either way you got over the flanking bonus issue, the rogue doesn't have to be making a melee attack, because we know two people can flank at the same time, while two people cannot be making a melee attack at the same time.

To put it simpler, we'll use master_marshmallow's assertion.
"But you aren't flanking if you make a ranged attack, only a melee attack."

Completely untrue. You don't have to make an attack at all to be flanking, unless you define flanking and flank as separate conditions. In that case, you don't have to be flanking to get sneak attack, you just have to flank, and you don't have to be making an attack to flank.

Take this example:
Greg the Fighter and Jeremy the Rogue are standing on opposite sides of Oleg the Ogre. Greg has a Longsword in hand, and Jeremy has a Rapier in one hand and a Hand Crossbow in the other. Greg attacks.

Greg gets a flanking bonus. At that time, does Jeremy flank the target? By the rules, he certainly does. A quick look at the second paragraph makes it clear that he is one of the two characters that flank the target.

Now, Jeremy fires his Hand Crossbow. What has changed? He wasn't making an attack at all before, and he flanked the target. Sneak Attack only requires the flank, not the flanking bonus. Nothing says that you stop threatening or no longer flank when making a ranged attack.

The only difference is that Jeremy doesn't get the flanking bonus. However, if Greg were the one attacking, Jeremy would still flank the target.

The assertion that you have to make a melee attack to flank is absolutely false, because you don't have to attack at all to flank. I can move up to an enemy and spend every action doing something other than attack, but I still flank the entire time as long as I have an ally across from me. That flank is all that Sneak Attack calls for. It doesn't give a damn about the bonus.

Sneak Attack is not a benefit of flanking. If it were a benefit of flanking, everyone that flanked would get it. Similarly, there are other ways to get Sneak Attack. Sneak Attack Damage is a benefit of the Sneak Attack ability. It is triggered by the flank, but is not a benefit of the flank. It is certainly not a flanking bonus.

The mentioned abilities do no work seamlessly with the rules that many are proposing. They work seamlessly with additional unwritten rules that make them work, which is exact opposite of RAW. Nothing tells me to pretend someone is making a melee attack to see if they are flanking or flank. That is completely outside the rules in the CRB.


I think you are misinterpreting the written rules. You cannot threaten with a ranged weapon, therefore you cannot flank with a ranged weapon.
Saying "lol I'm holding a dagger so I gets flanking with my crossbow" is not the same thing as the game needing to define flank and flanking as separate conditions.

When you change the circumstances in which you are flanking (like changing which weapon you are using) then it chances the entire circumstances of flanking in the first place.

You can only threaten with those melee weapons, when you qualify as flanking, it's because of the melee weapons. Just because you can hold a ranged and melee weapon at the same time doesn't mean the rules aren't clear about this.


HangarFlying wrote:


Finally, how can one be attacking a target, be flanking it, yet not get the flanking bonus?

The same way one can be flanking a target and not get the flanking bonus. Do you get the flanking bonus while standing there during your flanking buddies turn? No. You only get the flanking bonus when making a melee attack. However, by the rules, you're flanking the whole time. The second paragraph makes that crystal clear. Both people involved are flanking.

Nothing in the rules says you have to get the bonus to keep flanking.

I stated in my first post that this isn't what the author's want. However, it is what ended up putting in the book. RAI and RAW aren't always the same thing, and this is a clear case.

The designers can say its being read wrong all they want. I had one say the same thing to me back in the two-handed weapons and off-hand debate. The reality is that they wrote it wrong or, at the very least, failed to edit it.

The designer told us the intent, which I agree is the intent, but then, instead of admitting the technical aspects of RAW are screwed, he tried to claim that the intent is RAW by introducing a new state called providing the flank. The rules do not support his providing the flank concept at all. They refer to this "providing the flank" scenario as being one of the two characters that flank. By the rules, the person that provides the flank flanks just as much as the person making the attack.

If a ranged weapon can provide the flank, like the designer admitted, then he must be able to flank by the RAW.


Are you smoking something?
You absolutely can provide a flank by threatening an opponent on the opposite side.
You have to have a melee weapon drawn to do that.
No melee weapon? No flanking.
Ranged weapons do not threaten, therefore they do not flank. If you happen to find a way to threaten while coincidentally holding a ranged weapon, you haven't found some loophole, you are just being obstinate.

Liberty's Edge

Crash_00 wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:


Finally, how can one be attacking a target, be flanking it, yet not get the flanking bonus?

The same way one can be flanking a target and not get the flanking bonus. Do you get the flanking bonus while standing there during your flanking buddies turn? No. You only get the flanking bonus when making a melee attack. However, by the rules, you're flanking the whole time. The second paragraph makes that crystal clear. Both people involved are flanking.

Nothing in the rules says you have to get the bonus to keep flanking.

I stated in my first post that this isn't what the author's want. However, it is what ended up putting in the book. RAI and RAW aren't always the same thing, and this is a clear case.

The designers can say its being read wrong all they want. I had one say the same thing to me back in the two-handed weapons and off-hand debate. The reality is that they wrote it wrong or, at the very least, failed to edit it.

The designer told us the intent, which I agree is the intent, but then, instead of admitting the technical aspects of RAW are screwed, he tried to claim that the intent is RAW by introducing a new state called providing the flank. The rules do not support his providing the flank concept at all. They refer to this "providing the flank" scenario as being one of the two characters that flank. By the rules, the person that provides the flank flanks just as much as the person making the attack.

If a ranged weapon can provide the flank, like the designer admitted, then he must be able to flank by the RAW.

This whole conversation is about whether or not you can apply sneak attack damage to a ranged attack while flanking, right? Then who the f%~+ cares about stuff that doesnt deal with attacking.

Liberty's Edge

master_marshmallow wrote:

Are you smoking something?

You absolutely can provide a flank by threatening an opponent on the opposite side.
You have to have a melee weapon drawn to do that.
No melee weapon? No flanking.
Ranged weapons do not threaten, therefore they do not flank. If you happen to find a way to threaten while coincidentally holding a ranged weapon, you haven't found some loophole, you are just being obstinate.

Well, Snap Shot, but that is obviously an exception to the rule.

EDIT: and to be clear, Snap Shot allows you to provide flanking for someone else, not that you'd be able to receive the benefits of flanking by attacking with a ranged weapon.


master_marshmallow wrote:

I think you are misinterpreting the written rules. You cannot threaten with a ranged weapon, therefore you cannot flank with a ranged weapon.

Saying "lol I'm holding a dagger so I gets flanking with my crossbow" is not the same thing as the game needing to define flank and flanking as separate conditions.

When you change the circumstances in which you are flanking (like changing which weapon you are using) then it chances the entire circumstances of flanking in the first place.

You can only threaten with those melee weapons, when you qualify as flanking, it's because of the melee weapons. Just because you can hold a ranged and melee weapon at the same time doesn't mean the rules aren't clear about this.

Nothing requires you to threaten, by the rules, to make a flanking attack. Nothing in the rules forces your other weapons to stop threatening when you make an attack. You can wield a weapon in each hand, threatening with both, by the rules.

Can you make a flanking attack with a whip?
Can you make a flanking attack with an unarmed strike (assuming no IUS)?

Can someone make an AoO with his left-hand weapon if he used his right-hand weapon as part of a standard action attack?

Where are the rules that force a weapon to quit threatening when you make an attack with another weapon?

There are ways to threaten with ranged attacks, but before we even get there, your position only works if you add rules to negate all these points. Whips and unarmed strike don't threaten, but they can get a flanking bonus even. If you were to use one of those to apply sneak attack, few would even bother to argue. So the rogue having to make an attack that threatens isn't really a point.

You can wield multiple weapons even without two-weapon fighting and still be free to threaten and choose your attacks with them, so that point is a failure also. The person flanks, not the attack or weapon. So it's never a case of my crossbow flanks because my dagger does. It's a case of I flank, so my attack flanks.

So that leaves the last point. It isn't in the rules. There is no rule that says you quit threatening with other weapons when you make an attack.

Your position is exactly what I've stated. It's adding a bunch of nonexistent rules to claim RAI is RAW. When you add an unwritten rule to claim RAW, you've broken RAW by the definition of RAW.


HangarFlying wrote:
Crash_00 wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:


Finally, how can one be attacking a target, be flanking it, yet not get the flanking bonus?

The same way one can be flanking a target and not get the flanking bonus. Do you get the flanking bonus while standing there during your flanking buddies turn? No. You only get the flanking bonus when making a melee attack. However, by the rules, you're flanking the whole time. The second paragraph makes that crystal clear. Both people involved are flanking.

Nothing in the rules says you have to get the bonus to keep flanking.

I stated in my first post that this isn't what the author's want. However, it is what ended up putting in the book. RAI and RAW aren't always the same thing, and this is a clear case.

The designers can say its being read wrong all they want. I had one say the same thing to me back in the two-handed weapons and off-hand debate. The reality is that they wrote it wrong or, at the very least, failed to edit it.

The designer told us the intent, which I agree is the intent, but then, instead of admitting the technical aspects of RAW are screwed, he tried to claim that the intent is RAW by introducing a new state called providing the flank. The rules do not support his providing the flank concept at all. They refer to this "providing the flank" scenario as being one of the two characters that flank. By the rules, the person that provides the flank flanks just as much as the person making the attack.

If a ranged weapon can provide the flank, like the designer admitted, then he must be able to flank by the RAW.

This whole conversation is about whether or not you can apply sneak attack damage to a ranged attack while flanking, right? Then who the f**+ cares about stuff that doesnt deal with attacking.

It determines whether the rogue is flanking her target.

One side, seemingly with a willful blindness to the various abilities that refer to out-of-turn flanking, insist flanking is a momentary phenomenon that only exists during the instant of a melee attack. If they could find any RAW justification for this, that would deny the rogue his sneak attack with a ranged weapon, as he wouldn't be able to simultaneously flank and make a ranged attack.

The other side has pointed out various language throughout the game rules that shows flanking is a condition which perpetually exists, as long as the positional conditions are met. This allows the rogue to apply Sneak Attack to a ranged attack if he meets the requirements, i.e., threatening opposite of a threatening ally.

Liberty's Edge

Crash_00 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

I think you are misinterpreting the written rules. You cannot threaten with a ranged weapon, therefore you cannot flank with a ranged weapon.

Saying "lol I'm holding a dagger so I gets flanking with my crossbow" is not the same thing as the game needing to define flank and flanking as separate conditions.

When you change the circumstances in which you are flanking (like changing which weapon you are using) then it chances the entire circumstances of flanking in the first place.

You can only threaten with those melee weapons, when you qualify as flanking, it's because of the melee weapons. Just because you can hold a ranged and melee weapon at the same time doesn't mean the rules aren't clear about this.

Nothing requires you to threaten, by the rules, to make a flanking attack. Nothing in the rules forces your other weapons to stop threatening when you make an attack. You can wield a weapon in each hand, threatening with both, by the rules.

Can you make a flanking attack with a whip?
Can you make a flanking attack with an unarmed strike (assuming no IUS)?

Can someone make an AoO with his left-hand weapon if he used his right-hand weapon as part of a standard action attack?

Where are the rules that force a weapon to quit threatening when you make an attack with another weapon?

There are ways to threaten with ranged attacks, but before we even get there, your position only works if you add rules to negate all these points. Whips and unarmed strike don't threaten, but they can get a flanking bonus even. If you were to use one of those to apply sneak attack, few would even bother to argue. So the rogue having to make an attack that threatens isn't really a point.

You can wield multiple weapons even without two-weapon fighting and still be free to threaten and choose your attacks with them, so that point is a failure also. The person flanks, not the attack or weapon. So it's never a case of my crossbow flanks because my dagger does. It's a case of I...

Sure, you can attack with an UAS and gain the benefits of flanking because a) you are making a melee attack, and b) we are assuming that you have an ally that is in a legal position and threatens your target.

Conversely, if it was your ally's turn to attack, they would not receive the benefits of flanking because while you are in a legal position, you do not threaten the target due to you only being armed with UAS.

That in no way means that you can gain the benefits of flanking if you attack with a ranged weapon even though you have an ally threatening your target from a legal position because you are making a ranged attack, not a melee attack. No, you do not get sneak attack damage, because you are not using a legal method of attack to gain the benefits of flanking your target.


I think the basic question being (poorly) asked is:

Is being able to apply sneak attack damage (as a result of a flank) predicated on attacking with the same weapon with which you are threatening?

The answer is yes. The application of sneak attack damage is determined by the conditions at the time the attack is made (with no greater time precision than a single round). One of the conditions is the weapon with which the attack is made -- a ranged weapon such as a bow negates the condition of flanking at the time the attack is made by the bow, so you cannot get sneak attack damage with a bow.

Whether you are threatening with a dagger in a different hand, or your position relative to your target or your allies is immaterial to the question.

Attacking with a bow = you are not flanking which results in no sneak attack damage.


Quintain wrote:

I think the basic question being (poorly) asked is:

Is being able to apply sneak attack damage (as a result of a flank) predicated on attacking with the same weapon with which you are threatening?

The answer is yes. The application of sneak attack damage is determined by the conditions at the time the attack is made (with no greater time precision than a single round). One of the conditions is the weapon with which the attack is made -- a ranged weapon such as a bow negates the condition of flanking at the time the attack is made by the bow, so you cannot get sneak attack damage with a bow.

Whether you are threatening, threatening with a dagger in a different hand, or your position relative to your target or your allies is immaterial to the question.

Attacking with a bow = you are not flanking which results in no sneak attack damage.

I agree with Quintain, The basic question is being asked in such a way that no clear answer can be drawn from it. The question keeps changing from sneak attack in melee with a ranged weapon, to sneak attack in melee with a spell, and then to another unrelated topic as the question travels in cycles through these phases.

If the question were clarified to, "If I were in melee and fired a crossbow with my offhand, would I deal sneak attack damage if my ally were in position to flank" or a similarly clarified question it would be much easier to come to a consensus.

Personally I believe that by having such a vague question it could be argued either way depending on circumstances and feats and eldrich arcana that could be dredged up by everyone interested in seeing the answer they believe is 'right' be the 'chosen answer'.

Please clarify the exact circumstances you wish to sneak attack with a ranged weapon in melee and this question will be answered much more quickly and easily


If you're looking for the actual answer, you have it. If you're just looking to twist the rules into your position, no amount of clarity will satisfy you. Again, the CRB says melee only, an FAQ confirms melee only, the Dev in charge of the FAQ system (by my understanding) commented in this thread, and yet people still argue. The truth is out there but not everyone is looking for the truth.


Quote:
a ranged weapon such as a bow negates the condition of flanking at the time the attack is made by the bow

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. There is no RAW suggesting anything like this, and yet people continue to insist on it.

If you can quote rules to support this position, I'd love to see it so we can end this thread. Otherwise, could we PLEASE give a rest to this nonsense claim?


RumpinRufus wrote:
Quote:
a ranged weapon such as a bow negates the condition of flanking at the time the attack is made by the bow

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. There is no RAW suggesting anything like this, and yet people continue to insist on it.

If you can quote rules to support this position, I'd love to see it so we can end this thread. Otherwise, could we PLEASE give a rest to this nonsense claim?

Do you think quoting it for the hundredth time will convince you when the other 99 times failed?

301 to 350 of 645 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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.