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


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 645 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Summary of the thread thus far:

Interpretation of the Flanking rules

The issue under debate: whether a rogue can count as "flanking" for the purposes of qualifying for a Sneak Attack made with a ranged weapon while he is also threatening with a melee weapon, and has a flank buddy positioned to flank. (NOTE: we are NOT discussing whether the ranged attack gets a +2 flanking bonus, as it uncontroversially does NOT.)

Pro side argument: The flanking rules state the following test to see if a creature is flanking:

Flanking wrote:

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.

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Note that this is its own separate paragraph. Because the Sneak Attack ability asks only if the rogue is flanking, and not whether he is receiving a flanking bonus, this would indicate that the rogue still gets Sneak Attack even if using a ranged weapon, assuming he is positioned to flank.

Con side argument: That test is only to be interpreted in reference to the previous paragraph, regarding flanking bonuses:

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.

In this interpretation, the "flanking test" is only activated when a melee attack is being made.

Interpretation of the Gang Up FAQ

FAQ wrote:

Gang Up: Does this feat (page 161) allow you to flank a foe with ranged weapons?

The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent. The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat. (JMB, 8/13/10)

Con side argument: This FAQ shows that ranged attacks can never benefit from flanking. The wording "flanking specifically refers to melee attacks" means that ranged attacks are never affected by flanking. This FAQ is a clarification of already-existing rules.

Pro side argument: The wording "flanking specifically refers to melee attacks" is a restatement of the fact that the rules section "Flanking" mentions that only melee attacks can receive a +2 flanking bonus. The FAQ does not however, say that ranged attacks can never benefit from flanking, it only says that the Gang Up feat confers no benefit to ranged attacks when the attacker is flanking. In this interpretation, the FAQ changed the existing rules to negate the flanking benefit that was provided to ranged flanking attackers.

Whether "flanking" is momentary or continuous:

(disclaimer: to be very honest, I do not at all understand the Con side argument on this. However, it's been a recurring theme in this thread, so I suppose I should mention it.)

Con side argument: Flanking is a momentary designation that only applies to the process of a melee attack, during the moment that attack is made. No creature can ever be considered "flanking" unless someone is actively making a melee attack.

Con side variant argument: Flanking is a continuous designation that can exist even out-of-turn, but the designation of "flanking" is momentarily lost when an attacker makes a ranged attack.

Pro side argument: The rules clearly treat flanking as a continuous designation, that can exist out-of-turn or when no attack is being made. Various evidence can be presented to back this interpretation

Improved Back to Back: This feat is only usable on your own turn, but refers to an "ally who is flanked". This shows that even when no attack is being made, the flanking designation remains active.

Assault Leader: This ability can only be used after a failed attack, i.e., at a time when no attack is being made, and yet it refers to an "ally who is also flanking the target." This demonstrates that flanking persists after the attack is over.

Enfilading Fire: This feat confers a bonus on ranged attacks against "a foe flanked by 1 or more allies with this feat." This demonstrates that the for is considered "flanked" even though there is no melee attack being made.

Underfoot Assault: This ability states that as long as certain positional conditions are met, "all of the mouser's allies that are adjacent to both the foes and the mouser are considered to be flanking the foe. The mouser is considered to be flanking the foe whose space she is within if she is adjacent to an ally who is also adjacent to the foe." This gives a continuous designation of "flanking" to both the mouser and her allies, that is not dependent on any attack being made.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Actually, the Con side argument is that the "if in doubt" paragraph is part of the whole rules for flanking, and that flanking only affects additional features/abilities when the attack being made is a melee attack (see the first sentence of flanking).

Note specifically that I am saying that if you are in a flanking position, you are flanking, but that if the attack you make is not with a melee attack, then flanking is not a feature of that attack, and therefore you cannot sneak attack with it.


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?

The first sentence under the header of Flanking is the quote you are looking for.


Chemlak wrote:
Actually, the Con side argument is that the "if in doubt" paragraph is part of the whole rules for flanking, and that flanking only affects additional features/abilities when the attack being made is a melee attack (see the first sentence of flanking).

Then please explain how Enfilading Fire is ever supposed to work?

Chemlak wrote:
Note specifically that I am saying that if you are in a flanking position, you are flanking, but that if the attack you make is not with a melee attack, then flanking is not a feature of that attack, and therefore you cannot sneak attack with it.

The attack does not need to be flanking, the Sneak Attack ability only asks if the rogue is flanking.


Quintain wrote:
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?

The first sentence under the header of Flanking is the quote you are looking for.

I seriously want you to quote it, just so you can feel that sharp pang of cognitive dissonance. And please put bold around the part where it gives the rule "a flanking creature loses the flanking designation during the process of a ranged attack."


RumpinRufus wrote:
Quintain wrote:
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?

The first sentence under the header of Flanking is the quote you are looking for.

I seriously want you to quote it, just so you can feel that sharp pang of cognitive dissonance. And please put bold around the part where it gives the rule "a flanking creature loses the flanking designation during the process of a ranged attack."

It says you must threaten the target. You cannot threaten with a ranged weapon. If you change what weapon you are wielding to a ranged one, then you no longer threaten. You can only wield one weapon at a time, that time being during the attack in question. In between attacks sure, you go back to threatening with your dagger/gauntlet/IUAS/whatever, but while you are making that attack with the rangerranged weapon you are not wielding the melee weapon and you cannot gain the benefits of flanking, which is what you are suggesting.


"When making a melee attack,..."

Bolded for your enjoyment. You will note it says
"When making a...attack". It does not say "during the same round in which you could potentially make a melee attack".

With your spell, are you making a melee attack. Answer: No.

There are two forms of attacks in pathfinder: melee and ranged. When a specific form of attack is referenced, but the other is not, the exclusion of the other attack form means that that rule does not apply to the other attack form.

Or do you say that you can power attack with a ranged attack, or cleave with a ranged attack, or all the other feats that mention melee attacks but do not expressly omit ranged attacks in their texts?

If so, why is there a shot on the run feat when under your interpretation, spring attack works just as well?

If so, why is there a deadly aim feat, when power attack is the same thing?

Your interpretation does not hold when weighed against all the other places this interpretation can potentially apply.

And since you cannot explicitly quote anything where it says you can, your interpretation does not withstand scrutiny.


master_marshmallow wrote:
You can only wield one weapon at a time, that time being during the attack in question.

This is simply false.

Break Guard wrote:
While wielding two weapons, whenever you successfully use one weapon to disarm an opponent, you can spend a swift action to attack the opponent you attempted to disarm using your other weapon.


RumpinRufus wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
You can only wield one weapon at a time, that time being during the attack in question.

This is simply false.

Break Guard wrote:
While wielding two weapons, whenever you successfully use one weapon to disarm an opponent, you can spend a swift action to attack the opponent you attempted to disarm using your other weapon.

Wield is the wrong verb, the correct verb is attack. You can only attack with one weapon at a time.

Semantics don't change the thesis, and your quote even brings up using the weapons for different attacks.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
You can only wield one weapon at a time, that time being during the attack in question.

This is simply false.

Break Guard wrote:
While wielding two weapons, whenever you successfully use one weapon to disarm an opponent, you can spend a swift action to attack the opponent you attempted to disarm using your other weapon.

Wield is the wrong verb, the correct verb is attack. You can only attack with one weapon at a time.

Semantics don't change the thesis, and your quote even brings up using the weapons for different attacks.

and flanking doesn't care if you are attacking at the time to determine whether or not you provide a flank.


Even the FAQ points it out:

Quote:


The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat.

Now, they are specifically speaking of the Gang up feat, but the same grammar rule applies to the entire ruleset. Unless a specific attack form is included, it is excluded by default. Which answers my rhetorical questions on the power attack/Deadly Aim and Shot on the Run/Spring Attack feats.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Quintain wrote:

"When making a melee attack,..."

Bolded for your enjoyment. You will note it says
"When making a...attack". It does not say "during the same round in which you could potentially make a melee attack".

With your spell, are you making a melee attack. Answer: No.

There are two forms of attacks in pathfinder: melee and ranged. When a specific form of attack is referenced, but the other is not, the exclusion of the other attack form means that that rule does not apply to the other attack form.

Or do you say that you can power attack with a ranged attack, or cleave with a ranged attack, or all the other feats that mention melee attacks but do not expressly omit ranged attacks in their texts?

If so, why is there a shot on the run feat when under your interpretation, spring attack works just as well?

If so, why is there a deadly aim feat, when power attack is the same thing?

Your interpretation does not hold when weighed against all the other places this interpretation can potentially apply.

And since you cannot explicitly quote anything where it says you can, your interpretation does not withstand scrutiny.

none of that tells me when I stop flanking while making a ranged attack. I still cover all the bases needed to flank the target, and sneak attack only checks the rogues conditions not the type of weapon.

we've covered this, you can flank while not attacking, several feats and abilities use this fact, so you can still flank and do an action that does not benefit flanking.


Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
You can only wield one weapon at a time, that time being during the attack in question.

This is simply false.

Break Guard wrote:
While wielding two weapons, whenever you successfully use one weapon to disarm an opponent, you can spend a swift action to attack the opponent you attempted to disarm using your other weapon.

Wield is the wrong verb, the correct verb is attack. You can only attack with one weapon at a time.

Semantics don't change the thesis, and your quote even brings up using the weapons for different attacks.
and flanking doesn't care if you are attacking at the time to determine whether or not you provide a flank.

No, it only cares if you threaten, which you don't when attacking with a ranged weapon, because when you attack with a ranged weapon you cannot possibly also be attacking with a melee weapon.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
You can only wield one weapon at a time, that time being during the attack in question.

This is simply false.

Break Guard wrote:
While wielding two weapons, whenever you successfully use one weapon to disarm an opponent, you can spend a swift action to attack the opponent you attempted to disarm using your other weapon.

Wield is the wrong verb, the correct verb is attack. You can only attack with one weapon at a time.

Semantics don't change the thesis, and your quote even brings up using the weapons for different attacks.
and flanking doesn't care if you are attacking at the time to determine whether or not you provide a flank.

No, it only cares if you threaten, which you don't when attacking with a ranged weapon, because when you attack with a ranged weapon you cannot possibly also be attacking with a melee weapon.

we JUST proved that false. you can threaten with a dagger and cast ray of frost easily. you still flank the target and that is all that sneak attack checks for.


Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
You can only wield one weapon at a time, that time being during the attack in question.

This is simply false.

Break Guard wrote:
While wielding two weapons, whenever you successfully use one weapon to disarm an opponent, you can spend a swift action to attack the opponent you attempted to disarm using your other weapon.

Wield is the wrong verb, the correct verb is attack. You can only attack with one weapon at a time.

Semantics don't change the thesis, and your quote even brings up using the weapons for different attacks.
and flanking doesn't care if you are attacking at the time to determine whether or not you provide a flank.

No, it only cares if you threaten, which you don't when attacking with a ranged weapon, because when you attack with a ranged weapon you cannot possibly also be attacking with a melee weapon.

we JUST proved that false.

You just proved that you don't have to threaten to flank? Or that ranged weapons don't threaten?

I have yet to see you prove either.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
You can only wield one weapon at a time, that time being during the attack in question.

This is simply false.

Break Guard wrote:
While wielding two weapons, whenever you successfully use one weapon to disarm an opponent, you can spend a swift action to attack the opponent you attempted to disarm using your other weapon.

Wield is the wrong verb, the correct verb is attack. You can only attack with one weapon at a time.

Semantics don't change the thesis, and your quote even brings up using the weapons for different attacks.
and flanking doesn't care if you are attacking at the time to determine whether or not you provide a flank.

No, it only cares if you threaten, which you don't when attacking with a ranged weapon, because when you attack with a ranged weapon you cannot possibly also be attacking with a melee weapon.

we JUST proved that false.

You just proved that you don't have to threaten to flank? Or that ranged weapons don't threaten?

I have yet to see you prove either.

no that ranged weapons deny threatening. I threaten with my dagger while I throw the second.

you're purposefully misconstruing our argument.


Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
You can only wield one weapon at a time, that time being during the attack in question.

This is simply false.

Break Guard wrote:
While wielding two weapons, whenever you successfully use one weapon to disarm an opponent, you can spend a swift action to attack the opponent you attempted to disarm using your other weapon.

Wield is the wrong verb, the correct verb is attack. You can only attack with one weapon at a time.

Semantics don't change the thesis, and your quote even brings up using the weapons for different attacks.
and flanking doesn't care if you are attacking at the time to determine whether or not you provide a flank.

No, it only cares if you threaten, which you don't when attacking with a ranged weapon, because when you attack with a ranged weapon you cannot possibly also be attacking with a melee weapon.

we JUST proved that false.

You just proved that you don't have to threaten to flank? Or that ranged weapons don't threaten?

I have yet to see you prove either.
no that ranged weapons deny threatening. I threaten with my dagger while I throw the second.

Where is the quote that says that, because it would also say that you can make flanking attacks that are ranged.

Quotes or it's not proof.


Quote:


you still flank the target and that is all that sneak attack checks for.

Flanking the target is what matters, and flanking is checked "When making...an attack. The part I omitted is very important too.. want to guess what word goes in there?

Melee.

Want to know what it does NOT say?

Ranged.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Quintain wrote:

Even the FAQ points it out:

Quote:


The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat.
Now, they are specifically speaking of the Gang up feat, but the same grammar rule applies to the entire ruleset. Unless a specific attack form is included, it is excluded by default. Which answers my rhetorical questions on the power attack/Deadly Aim and Shot on the Run/Spring Attack feats.

yes we all agree that ranged attacks cannot gain the +2 to-hit bonus, no one is arguing that.

gang up as mentioned before(many many posts ago) was REALLY badly worded, they didn't mean to allow ranged attacks to provide a flank on their own with that feat.

we are saying that you flank normally and use that in conjunction with sneak attack to apply the sneak dice to the attack, as that is how sneak attack is worded.


Sneak attack in particular applies only to an attack. To make an attack, it must be either melee or ranged. If it is ranged, then for the duration of that attack you do not threaten, because you cannot threaten with a ranged weapon.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Sneak attack in particular applies only to an attack. To make an attack, it must be either melee or ranged. If it is ranged, then for the duration of that attack you do not threaten, because you cannot threaten with a ranged weapon.

read it again, it applies to the rogue, and under certain conditions gives additional damage dice to an attack. it is never a quality of the attack itself. it simply adds precision damage dice to the attack in question.

no where does sneak attack mention any characteristics of the attack in it's writing.


Quintain wrote:

"When making a melee attack,..."

Bolded for your enjoyment. You will not it says when making a...attack. It does not say "during the same round in which you could potentially make a melee attack".

With your spell, are you making a melee attack. Answer: No.

There are two forms of attacks in pathfinder: melee and ranged. When a specific form of attack is referenced, but the other is not, the exclusion of the other attack form means that that rule does not apply to the other attack form.

Or do you say that you can power attack with a ranged attack, or cleave with a ranged attack, or all the other feats that mention melee attacks but do not expressly omit ranged attacks in their texts?

If so, why is there a shot on the run feat when under your interpretation, spring attack works just as well?

If so, why is there a deadly aim feat, when power attack is the same thing?

Your interpretation does not hold when weighed against all the other places this interpretation can potentially apply.

And since you cannot explicitly quote anything where it says you can, your interpretation does not withstand scrutiny.

Straw man argument. Please refer to the top post of this page.

The actual position is that the second paragraph refers to "flanking", which is different than the "flanking bonus" in the first paragraph.

An analogy: the rules on becoming disabled say:

Disabled wrote:

When your current hit point total drops to exactly 0, you are disabled.

You gain the staggered condition and can only take a single move or standard action each turn (but not both, nor can you take full-round actions). You can take move actions without further injuring yourself, but if you perform any standard action (or any other strenuous action) you take 1 point of damage after completing the act. Unless your activity increased your hit points, you are now at –1 hit points and dying.

Healing that raises your hit points above 0 makes you fully functional again, just as if you'd never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points.

The first paragraph refers to "when your current hit point total drops to exactly 0." Does this mean everything that follows refers only to that exact moment when your HP hits 0? If that were the case, someone healing you at any other time would not remove the Disabled condition, because those rules only refer to the moment "When your current hit point total drops to exactly 0".

But no, that's obviously not the case. The rules on healing are in a separate paragraph. Similarly, the rules on when you are flanking are in a separate paragraph from the rules on when you get a flanking bonus.


Bandw2 wrote:
Quintain wrote:

Even the FAQ points it out:

Quote:


The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat.
Now, they are specifically speaking of the Gang up feat, but the same grammar rule applies to the entire ruleset. Unless a specific attack form is included, it is excluded by default. Which answers my rhetorical questions on the power attack/Deadly Aim and Shot on the Run/Spring Attack feats.

yes we all agree that ranged attacks cannot gain the +2 to-hit bonus, no one is arguing that.

It also means that it doesn't get the flanking "condition".

Bandw2 wrote:


gang up as mentioned before(many many posts ago) was REALLY badly worded, they didn't mean to allow ranged attacks to provide a flank on their own with that feat.

we are saying that you flank normally and use that in conjunction with sneak attack to apply the sneak dice to the attack, as that is how sneak attack is worded.

It wasn't badly worded at all except to those who want to say that RAW says they can flank and attack with a ranged weapon at the same time.

Flanking is checked "When you make an...attack". Point blank. Simple, to the point.

What you are trying to do is turn flanking into an attack advantage and make it into a condition.

Flanking is something that comes and goes depending on specific criteria and the most important part of whether you are flanking is "When you make a melee attack".


Quote:


Straw man argument. Please refer to the top post of this page.

The actual position is that the second paragraph refers to "flanking", which is different than the "flanking bonus" in the first paragraph.

An analogy: the rules on becoming disabled say:

Not a straw man, but yours is a classic example of reducto ad-absurdum.


Reductio ad absurdum is a valid rhetorical device.

Straw man is a fallacy (which you made by erroneously claiming I was supporting the use of Power Attack on ranged attacks.)


Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Sneak attack in particular applies only to an attack. To make an attack, it must be either melee or ranged. If it is ranged, then for the duration of that attack you do not threaten, because you cannot threaten with a ranged weapon.

read it again, it applies to the rogue, and under certain conditions gives additional damage dice to an attack. it is never a quality of the attack itself. it simply adds precision damage dice to the attack in question.

no where does sneak attack mention any characteristics of the attack in it's writing.

It does not, it specifically refers to "the rogue's attack."

Consider yourself fact checked.


Quote:


The first paragraph refers to "when your current hit point total drops to exactly 0."

False analogy. Here's why.

Your false analogy hinges on two things: the interpretation of the "when" and the interpretation of the "exactly zero".

The definition of "when" is determined at the time of the test.

It is just a valid use of when in the English language as the point in time at which a condition starts as well as at which it continues.

Exactly zero, means all other numbers are excluded from the test.

When...exactly zero applies as your hit points reach zero (but not below), as well as if it remains zero over the course of time.

The difference between the above, is that "When making a melee attack" occurs at specific points in time during a round at the specific point in time at which the dice hit the table.

Your hit points are a value that changes over the course of the entire round.

Try again. This time without the false analogies.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Quintain wrote:

Even the FAQ points it out:

Quote:


The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat.
Now, they are specifically speaking of the Gang up feat, but the same grammar rule applies to the entire ruleset. Unless a specific attack form is included, it is excluded by default. Which answers my rhetorical questions on the power attack/Deadly Aim and Shot on the Run/Spring Attack feats.

yes we all agree that ranged attacks cannot gain the +2 to-hit bonus, no one is arguing that.

It also means that it doesn't get the flanking "condition".

Bandw2 wrote:


gang up as mentioned before(many many posts ago) was REALLY badly worded, they didn't mean to allow ranged attacks to provide a flank on their own with that feat.

we are saying that you flank normally and use that in conjunction with sneak attack to apply the sneak dice to the attack, as that is how sneak attack is worded.

It wasn't badly worded at all except to those who want to say that RAW says they can flank and attack with a ranged weapon at the same time.

Flanking is checked "When you make an...attack". Point blank. Simple, to the point.

What you are trying to do is turn flanking into an attack advantage and make it into a condition.

Flanking is something that comes and goes depending on specific criteria and the most important part of whether you are flanking is "When you make a melee attack".

gang up allows you to flank with unarmed strikes... it's just really bad.


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

anyway i'll just bring this up again for only flanking during melee attacks.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Sneak attack in particular applies only to an attack. To make an attack, it must be either melee or ranged. If it is ranged, then for the duration of that attack you do not threaten, because you cannot threaten with a ranged weapon.

read it again, it applies to the rogue, and under certain conditions gives additional damage dice to an attack. it is never a quality of the attack itself. it simply adds precision damage dice to the attack in question.

no where does sneak attack mention any characteristics of the attack in it's writing.

It does not, it specifically refers to "the rogue's attack."

Consider yourself fact checked.

yes and adds damage to it if the ROGUE is flanking the target. if only attacks can flank, then it would be impossible.

consider yourself fact checked.


Quote:


gang up allows you to flank with unarmed strikes... it's just really bad.

No, not really. There are exclusions to flanking that apply despite the exception provided by Gang up.

Most people want to interpret the rules in a way that makes it most advantageous to them.

Which is natural. And to tell you the truth, I have really no problem with being able to use Gang up with ranged weapons, or flanking from ranged and tying it to whether you are threatening them.

However, RAW does not support his conclusion because RAW is exclusionary. The reason why is that the developers could not ever allow for any and every option in an expanding game.

That is why the idea of "the rules don't say that I can't" is not a valid method of rules interpretation. (Which is the exact method he's employing).

He's trying to exploit text shorthand (saying the term flanking vs expressly stating gaining the flanking bonus), to his advantage -- which is simply wrong.

Just house rule it and go on. It's your game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

so just answer me this so we can clear all confusion out of your side of the argument at this point.

Can someone flank during points other than while making an attack?(answer true if any situation other than an attack you can be considered flanking or flanked) and then explain.

how do you explain the listed feats:
Improved Back to Back
Assault Leader
Enfilading Fire
Topple Foe
Amplified Rage
Underfoot Assault

Please answer each of them individually as they vary greatly.

I would like to have your opinions clearly on these subjects before i continue the debate.


A rogue can also use sneak attack anytime the target is denied it's DEX bonus to AC. Flanking is not the only means with which to allow for a sneak attack, ranged or otherwise.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
A rogue can also use sneak attack anytime the target is denied it's DEX bonus to AC. Flanking is not the only means with which to allow for a sneak attack, ranged or otherwise.

no offense, irrelevant to the discussion(look at that title).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

for reference

Improved Back to Back wrote:
While you are adjacent to an ally who is flanked and also has this feat, you can spend a swift action to gain a +2 bonus to AC against all flankers until the start of your next turn.
Assault Leader wrote:
Once per day, when the rogue misses with an attack on a flanked opponent, she can designate a single ally who is also flanking the target that her attack missed. That ally can make a single melee attack against the opponent as an immediate action.
Enfilading Fire wrote:
You receive a +2 bonus on ranged attacks made against a foe flanked by 1 or more allies with this feat.
Topple Foe wrote:

If you attempt to trip a foe that is larger than you, you gain a +1 bonus on your CMB check to trip the foe as long as an ally with Topple Foe is flanking the foe with you. If multiple allies with Topple Foe are flanking the foe with you, you gain an additional +2 bonus on your CMD check for each additional ally that’s flanking the target. The bonuses granted by this feat stack with those granted by Improved Trip and Greater Trip.

Each time you attempt to trip the same foe in consecutive rounds, the bonus granted to your trip attempt increases by +1 per ally, to a maximum bonus of +4 per flanking ally on the 4th round of consecutive trip attempts.

Amplified Rage wrote:
Whenever you are raging and adjacent to a raging ally who also has this feat or flanking the same opponent as a raging ally with this feat, your morale bonuses to Strength and Constitution increase by +4. This feat does not stack with itself (you only gain this bonus from one qualifying ally, regardless of how many are adjacent to you).
Underfoot Assault wrote:

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

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


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


gang up allows you to flank with unarmed strikes... it's just really bad.

No, not really. There are exclusions to flanking that apply despite the exception provided by Gang up.

Most people want to interpret the rules in a way that makes it most advantageous to them.

Which is natural. And to tell you the truth, I have really no problem with being able to use Gang up with ranged weapons, or flanking from ranged and tying it to whether you are threatening them.

However, RAW does not support his conclusion because RAW is exclusionary. The reason why is that the developers could not ever allow for any and every option in an expanding game.

That is why the idea of "the rules don't say that I can't" is not a valid method of rules interpretation. (Which is the exact method he's employing).

He's trying to exploit text shorthand (saying the term flanking vs expressly stating gaining the flanking bonus), to his advantage -- which is simply wrong.

Just house rule it and go on. It's your game.

None of this is relevant. There is no "the rules don't say I can't" being argued.

The rules explicitly say when you are considered flanking (in the second paragraph of the flanking rules.) The rules explicitly say that the rogue gets to apply Sneak Attack when he flanks his target.

Put two and two together. If the rogue meets the test that determines flanking, and makes an attack that targets the opponent he is flanking, he gets his Sneak Attack, by RAW. The devs did not seem to do that intentionally, but RAW is RAW.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's nice.


Someone bring up the FAQ about two handed weapons and two weapon fighting with gauntlets and unarmed strikes.
On mobile right now.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

Someone bring up the FAQ about two handed weapons and two weapon fighting with gauntlets and unarmed strikes.

On mobile right now.

why?, they hardly seem relevant unless you want to set up a strawman.

please, just answer my questions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

going to put my two posts together so i can quote it later easier.

Improved Back to Back wrote:
While you are adjacent to an ally who is flanked and also has this feat, you can spend a swift action to gain a +2 bonus to AC against all flankers until the start of your next turn.
Assault Leader wrote:
Once per day, when the rogue misses with an attack on a flanked opponent, she can designate a single ally who is also flanking the target that her attack missed. That ally can make a single melee attack against the opponent as an immediate action.
Enfilading Fire wrote:
You receive a +2 bonus on ranged attacks made against a foe flanked by 1 or more allies with this feat.
Topple Foe wrote:

If you attempt to trip a foe that is larger than you, you gain a +1 bonus on your CMB check to trip the foe as long as an ally with Topple Foe is flanking the foe with you. If multiple allies with Topple Foe are flanking the foe with you, you gain an additional +2 bonus on your CMD check for each additional ally that’s flanking the target. The bonuses granted by this feat stack with those granted by Improved Trip and Greater Trip.

Each time you attempt to trip the same foe in consecutive rounds, the bonus granted to your trip attempt increases by +1 per ally, to a maximum bonus of +4 per flanking ally on the 4th round of consecutive trip attempts.

Amplified Rage wrote:
Whenever you are raging and adjacent to a raging ally who also has this feat or flanking the same opponent as a raging ally with this feat, your morale bonuses to Strength and Constitution increase by +4. This feat does not stack with itself (you only gain this bonus from one qualifying ally, regardless of how many are adjacent to you).
Underfoot Assault wrote:

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

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

so just answer me this so we can clear all confusion out of your side of the argument at this point.

Can someone flank during points other than while making an attack?(answer true if any situation other than an attack you can be considered flanking or flanked) and then explain.

how do you explain the listed feats:
Improved Back to Back
Assault Leader
Enfilading Fire
Topple Foe
Amplified Rage
Underfoot Assault

Please answer each of them individually as they vary greatly.

I would like to have your opinions clearly on these subjects before i continue the debate.


Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Someone bring up the FAQ about two handed weapons and two weapon fighting with gauntlets and unarmed strikes.

On mobile right now.

why?, they hardly seem relevant unless you want to set up a strawman.

please, just answer my questions.

Because it specifically calls out things like simultaneous attacks and wielding different weapons with the same hand.


you people are all insane lol


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

Someone bring up the FAQ about two handed weapons and two weapon fighting with gauntlets and unarmed strikes.

On mobile right now.

why?, they hardly seem relevant unless you want to set up a strawman.

please, just answer my questions.

Because it specifically calls out things like simultaneous attacks and wielding different weapons with the same hand.

hands of effort only really apply while two-weapon fighting. if that's what you're getting at.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
baconwing wrote:
you people are all insane lol

I try.


Quote:


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

Explanation: If an opponent has a +2 bonus to hit when making a melee attack against you as a result of a flank, you can use a swift action to gain a +2 to AC, negating the typical flanking bonus.

Quote:


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

Once per day, when the rogue whiffs because his BAB is pathetic and flanking doesn't make up for the difference, she can designate an ally that is granted an attack outside her normal turn, however, the ally must make a melee attack when the attack is made.

Quote:


Enfilading Fire
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on ranged attacks made against a foe flanked by 1 or more allies with this feat.

If your teammates are on either side of an opponent (using the non-technical definition of the term "flanking" -- meaning to the side of (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flanking?s=t). They provide you a +2 bonus to hit.

This is similar to the difference between flanking and providing a flank in melee. You can do one, but not the other under specific circumstances.

Quote:


While the mouser is within her foe's space, the foe takes a –4 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks not made against the mouser, and all of the mouser's allies that are adjacent to both the foe and the mouser are considered to be flanking the foe.

This is a positional description wherein the mouser provides flanking to all of her teammates and they provide flanking to her provided she qualifies for it.

If the mouser were to wield a ranged weapon while in the same square as her opponent, the fact that she is attacking with a ranged weapon would negate both her bonus to attack as well as the ability to sneak attack with it. Simply because of rule number one of flanking "When making a melee attack".

If you want to put it into "computer ese", the test of making a melee attack is one big if block that surrounds all of these little exceptions unless there is an explicit exception provided in the rules.

If [ Attack_Form = "Melee" ]; then
...
conditional exception, conditional exception, etc
...
Else # Ranged weapon tests go here

fi

It's not hard to understand.

Now, I would be 100% for having an "Improved Enfilidating Fire" feat that has "Enfilidating Fire" as a prereq that allows for flanking at range (the +2 flanking bonus would be subsumed into the Enfilidating Fire feat bonus).

That would be awesome.

However, at this time, RAW does not support flanking when attacking with a ranged weapon. Melee only.


Quote:


The rules explicitly say that the rogue gets to apply Sneak Attack when he flanks his target.

And the rules explicitly say "when making a melee attack".

They do not explicitly say, when making a ranged attack when flanking.

That is what you are trying to interpret into the rules.


It goes to show that RAI by the developers may have been to have melee sneak attack available more often than ranged sneak attacks, on purpose.

But, may also not be relevant either, because splitting hairs in a RAW argument is much more enjoyable.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

you missed most of the relevant parts that explicitly call out people being flanked or flanking while not their turn or making attacks.

if you can flank while not making a melee attack, you concede that your character can be considered flanking at other times then? or were you never arguing against that.

if so then how do you stop your character from counting from flanking for the purposes of sneak attack?

I don't see how you can both allow for only while making a melee attack, and allow the rules to have people flanking at other times.


Bandw2 wrote:

you missed most of the relevant parts that explicitly call out people being flanked or flanking while not their turn or making attacks.

if you can flank while not making a melee attack, you concede that your character can be considered flanking at other times then? or were you never arguing against that.

if so then how do you stop your character from counting from flanking for the purposes of sneak attack?

There is providing a flank and then there is flanking. You provide a flank just by being adjacent to a foe and threatening him -- Snap shot allows you to threaten a foe from up to X number of feat and provide a flank to your teammate that is attacking him with a melee weapon (which gives the teammate the ability to sneak attack with said melee weapon as well as giving the +2 bonus to hit).

At the same time, your teammate is providing you a flank because of the fact that he is threatening your opponent and is on the opposite side of your opponent from you (draw the line)...however, despite the condition of threatening your opponent with a ranged weapon and having snap shot, you are still not flanking...because you are attacking with a ranged weapon.

It's really that simple.

What the rules do (and what you are trying to exploit) is the game term definition of "flanking" with the common term flanking -- which is a positional term. The definition of flanking is dependent on the context of the paragraph wherein it is used.

Could they be more specific in their wording.. probably, but then again, I don't want my books to cost $100.00 due to excessive page count that would dwarf the page count of the Affordable Care Act.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

you missed most of the relevant parts that explicitly call out people being flanked or flanking while not their turn or making attacks.

if you can flank while not making a melee attack, you concede that your character can be considered flanking at other times then? or were you never arguing against that.

if so then how do you stop your character from counting from flanking for the purposes of sneak attack?

There is providing a flank and then there is flanking. You provide a flank just by being adjacent to a foe and threatening him -- Snap shot allows you to threaten a foe from up to X number of feat and [b]provide a flank" to your teammate that is attacking him with a melee weapon (which gives the teammate the ability to sneak attack as well as giving the +2 bonus to hit).

At the same time, your teammate is providing you a flank because of the fact that he is threatening your opponent and is on the opposite side of your opponent from you (draw the line)...however, despite the condition of threatening your opponent with a ranged weapon and having snap shot, you are still not flanking...because you are attacking with a ranged weapon.

It's really that simple.

sneak attack wants to know if you provide a flank though, it is worded the same. are you saying it would work if i was the target of assault leader and shot a crossbow with my immediate action?

and so you are arguing that conditions suck as flanked and flanking exist but they for some reason do not apply while making a ranged attack?

I REALLY want to know how this can work, how can you have the conditions but then have them stop for no written reason.

basically i see several contradictions. you either have it as a condition, which is what sneak attack wants, or you have it only during attacks, which would stop several feats from working.

I am not making a difference between English and in-game "flanking", i am using the Games definition, as in, it appears to work the way i am saying with far less complexity, and you keep adding non-written exceptions.

351 to 400 of 645 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does Sneak Attack apply to ranged attacks when you are flanking? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.