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


Rules Questions

401 to 450 of 645 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Quote:


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?

Tell sneak attack that regardless of what she may think, the only time that he can go out with her boyfriend "Ranged Weapon" is during the Surprise Round or if they go to the "Flat Footed" Restaurant.

Daddy Developer says so.


Is flanking or flanked on the list of conditions?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

so you are saying

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

are you saying these have different conditions?

if so please show me where either case in described.

the second one should be easy, the first though, i don't see where it is described except under the same section.

to me they both appear to be worded exactly the same, and thusly use the same conditions.

@ condition thing, no but one of the feats i mentioned talks about if you are flanked or not, meaning that the game considers people to be flanked at least some of the time.


Quote:


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.

No, basically what you need to do to eliminate these apparent contradictions is to be granular in your method of interpretation.

Here's an example of being granular:

The test for whether you threaten is separate from whether you are flanking is separate from whether you provide a flank and is separate from whether you can sneak attack.

If you are unarmed (no improved unarmed strike), do you:

Threaten: No -- If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity. -- Under attacks of opportunity.

Do you flank: Yes, you are making a melee attack.

Do you provide a flank: No - you do not threaten. -- Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.-- (this is what is called: Providing a flank).

Do can you sneak attack: Yes -- because you are flanking (which means you are making a melee attack) -- Rule: With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. --


Kryzbyn wrote:

Is flanking or flanked on the list of conditions?

"Flying" is also not on the list of conditions, but the rules refer to "flying" creatures, e.g., the spell Sirocco.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
Quote:


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.

No, basically what you need to do to eliminate these apparent contradictions is to be granular in your method of interpretation.

Here's an example of being granular:

The test for whether you threaten is separate from whether you are flanking is separate from whether you provide a flank and is separate from whether you can sneak attack.

If you are unarmed (no improved unarmed strike), do you:

Threaten: No -- If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity. -- Under attacks of opportunity.

Do you flank: Yes, you are making a melee attack.

Do you provide a flank: No - you do not threaten. -- Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.-- (this is what is called: Providing a flank).

Do can you sneak attack: Yes -- because you are flanking (which means you are making a melee attack) -- Rule: With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. --

okay then clarify for me the difference SPECIFICALLY between flanking and providing a flank, and how to easily tell the difference between them.

sneak attack is worded as far as i can see exactly as providing a flank, which is what i have argued several times before you arrived, that that is what it checks for, not if you are "flanking because you're making a melee attack with all the correct stuff".

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


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.


There is no "providing the flank." It does not exist in the rules. It does not matter which side of the argument you are on, it just doesn't work that way.

Let's use you side, Quintain. You propose that the rules say you only threaten when making a melee attack.

Greg the fighter and Bob the fighter are on opposite sides of Olag the Orc. Greg swings his Falchion at Olag. Bob threatens with his Longsword and Heavy Shield.

Who is flanking in this scenario?

Greg and Bob are both flanking. Why? Because the second paragraph of the Flanking section tells us how to determine "when two characters flank." It doesn't tell us how to tell when another character "provides the flank."

Threaten? Check.
Position? Check.

Then flanking is a yes. That is by your position.

On the next topic, attacks do not flank. Characters flank. A rogue has to flank, not the attacks he makes. If he could "provide the flank" for another character, then he flanks by RAW. He may not get a bonus on his attack, but that in no way means he doesn't flank.

Take Assault Leader as an example. It requires an ally that is "flanking" when the rogue's attack misses. Is that "flanking" ally getting a bonus while he's just standing there? No. He is flanking though, as the rules make clear.


Bandw2 wrote:

so you are saying

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

are you saying these have different conditions?

Yes, they are different conditions. What happens if the opponent being flanked has improved uncanny dodge? You both can still be "flanking" (to either side of your opponent), but still not get sneak attack damage due to the impossibility of a flank being applicable due to the improved uncanny dodge feat that your opponent wisely invested in.

Bandw2 wrote:


if so please show me where either case in described.

the second one should be easy, the first though, i don't see where it is described except under the same section.

to me they both appear to be worded exactly the same, and thusly use the same conditions.

@ condition thing, no but one of the feats i mentioned talks about if you are flanked or not, meaning that the game considers people to be flanked at least some of the time.

You can be flanked and not flanked depending on who is attacking you and whith what weapon:

Note the scenario above with snap shot. The archer is not flanking the opponent and with attacks from the archer, the opponent is not considered to be "flanked". However, at the same time (or rather when the melee dude is attacking), he is considered flanked because the archer is providing a flank to the melee guy and the melee guy is attacking with a melee weapon.

The problem is you are confusing the common term flanking (being to the side of) with the game rule term flanking, which has specific tests that need to be performed in order to apply.


master_marshmallow wrote:


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

Uhm…no.

It calls out using the off-hand on both a two-handed weapon and an off-hand attack. The original discussion involved Two-handed swords and armor spikes.

It has nothing to do with this discussion. In this discussion, a person is wielding a weapon in one hand while attacking with a weapon out of the other. Both only require one hand. There is no doubling up of hands, either physical or effort.

A more apt FAQ wold be the one confirming that you can wield multiple weapons and split your attacks between them without needing to two weapon fight.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Quintain wrote:

You can be flanked and not flanked depending on who is attacking you and whith what weapon:

Note the scenario above with snap shot. The archer is not flanking the opponent and with attacks from the archer, the opponent is not considered to be "flanked". However, at the same time (or rather when the melee dude is attacking), he is considered flanked because the archer is providing a flank to the melee guy and the melee guy is attacking with a melee weapon.

The problem is you are confusing the common term flanking (being to the side of) with the game rule term flanking, which has specific tests that need to be performed in order to apply.

i'm not confusing the terms, i'm trying to find where the game gives the definition of "flanking" that is different than "providing a flank" the game doesn't seem to make a distinction between the two.


As he said, the game doesn't care if you are making an attack or not, if you are in position and threaten, then you are flanking. This is true no matter which side of the original debate you are on.

Why do the rules tell us how to determine when two characters flank if they aren't actually both flanking?


Quote:


Let's use you side, Quintain. You propose that the rules say you only threaten when making a melee attack.

No I do not. There is a difference between threaten and providing a flank or flanking

Snap shot allows you to threaten with a ranged weapon. Normally ranged weapons do not threaten (which is part of the reason why they provoke attacks of opportunity when used in melee range).

Quote:


On the next topic, attacks do not flank. Characters flank.

No one has said otherwise. Characters flank, but they do not flank all the time, they only flank when making melee attacks. However, they provide a flank just by threatening.

See the snap shot example above. One is flanking, the other is not. Both are threatening.

Here is the rules quote definition of "providing a flank":

Quote:


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

Pg. 197, Right column, 1st sentence.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

snap shot does allow you to flank though, just not take advantage with it, it would allow a sneak attack to apply though.

and that doesn't appear to actually be different than the flanking section.


Crash_00 wrote:

As he said, the game doesn't care if you are making an attack or not, if you are in position and threaten, then you are flanking. This is true no matter which side of the original debate you are on.

Why do the rules tell us how to determine when two characters flank if they aren't actually both flanking?

No, you are helping another flank by threatening the same opponent or not.

The basic premise of the gang up feat is that the two individuals in melee provide a flank (allows the 3rd to flank) by all three of them attacking the same target -- regardless of actual positioning.

Quote:


Why do the rules tell us how to determine when two characters flank if they aren't actually both flanking?

Some of the flanking rules and statements are scattered around the rulebook -- can't look in just one section for rules applying to flanking.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

the "Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus." portion appears to also be under the "only when making a melee attack portion of flanking. if it's not then the other portion is also free of this restriction.

when used in the context of the phrases right above it

"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."

it simply seems to follow the "Exception" area, in that it gives exceptions. meaning that it simply shows the exceptions to when to character's are flanking.


Bandw2 wrote:
snap shot does allow you to flank though, just not take advantage with it, it would allow a sneak attack to apply though.

Sorry, no, you cannot. See the FAQ on Gang up. You cannot flank with a ranged weapon, even if you are provided a flank via other reasons.

Gang up doesn't let you do it and the snap shot feat line only speaks of attacks of opportunity, it mentions nothing about flanking.

You can threaten but not flank, although in order to flank, you must threaten.

It is not 100% reciprocal.

Quote:


it simply seems to follow the "Exception" area, in that it gives exceptions. meaning that it simply shows the exceptions to when to character's are flanking.

Yes, it's in an exception area. Which means it's a special case. Example: if your friend follows the imaginary line and a foe sits in between you and your friend, but your friend is unarmed (and thus not threatening, are you flanking.

No. Because for the flanking rules, your friend isn't providing enough of a threat for him to worry about and thus be distracted enough for you to get your +2 bonus or sneak attack.

His simple existence on the other side of your opponent doesn't mean you get to apply sneak attack or get the bonus. Just like if you had a tiny animal companion (reach 0 -- can't threaten) in the same spot.

The FAQ gives the same statement when it comes to ranged weapons.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
snap shot does allow you to flank though, just not take advantage with it, it would allow a sneak attack to apply though.

Sorry, no, you cannot. See the FAQ on Gang up. You cannot flank with a ranged weapon, even if you are provided a flank via other reasons.

Gang up doesn't let you do it and the snap shot feat line only speaks of attacks of opportunity, it mentions nothing about flanking.

You can threaten but not flank, although in order to flank, you must threaten.

It is not 100% reciprocal.

if you provide a flank, then you are flanking, your post actually just made me realize this.

Flanking wrote:


When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

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

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

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

Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.

the area below the bolded are exceptions to the area directly above the bolded. meaning that the "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." is simply augmented by the section on threatening. it doesn't provide a different condition but augments the first existing one.

so once again, provide me with the difference between providing a flank and flanking. if it provides a different condition your implying that the threaten is unrelated to flanking and you can flank without threatening.

to clarify

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

is an exception placed upon

"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."

meaning that there isn't a separation between "flanking" and "providing a flank" shown here.


Bandw2 wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
snap shot does allow you to flank though, just not take advantage with it, it would allow a sneak attack to apply though.

Sorry, no, you cannot. See the FAQ on Gang up. You cannot flank with a ranged weapon, even if you are provided a flank via other reasons.

Gang up doesn't let you do it and the snap shot feat line only speaks of attacks of opportunity, it mentions nothing about flanking.

You can threaten but not flank, although in order to flank, you must threaten.

It is not 100% reciprocal.

if you provide a flank, then you are flanking, your post actually just made me realize this.

Flanking wrote:


When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

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

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

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

Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.

the area below the bolded are exceptions to the area directly above the bolded. meaning that the "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." is simply augmented by the section on threatening. it doesn't provide a different condition but augments the first existing one.

so once again, provide me with the difference between providing a flank and flanking....

So what exactly are you saying with this post?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
So what exactly are you saying with this post?

that other guy said this was the place where it showed that providing a flank and flanking were defined in different sections.


Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
So what exactly are you saying with this post?
that other guy said this was the place where it showed that providing a flank and flanking were defined in different sections.

They aren't, in order to flank, you have to threaten in melee, which is defined as holding a melee weapon and being in range.

The only point you have made is that the rules for threatening in melee don't surgically say that you don't threaten if you are also holding a weapon that isn't melee.

But you cannot gain the benefits of wielding one weapon while making attacks with the other, which is why I referenced the two handed weapon deal earlier.

The fact of the matter us that the ranged weapon us not the one that threatens, if you were to eliminate it from the equation, then you end up with just a flanking character. If you remove the melee weapon from the equation then you don't even threaten and thus neither you nor your partner threaten.

On mobile so I cannot break down the other feats and abilities listed, but there is no inconsistency with any of them when it comes to this rule.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
So what exactly are you saying with this post?
that other guy said this was the place where it showed that providing a flank and flanking were defined in different sections.

They aren't, in order to flank, you have to threaten in melee

woah woah woah, where does it say that?

anyway, i'm not trying to steal weapon properties, i'm trying to have sneak attack apply due to the target i am flanking.

there is no evidence to suggest i stop flanking the moment i start making a ranged attack or casting a spell. people just WANT it to only work on melee stuff in every regard, but the fact of the matter is, the opener interpretation works better, and isn't even that exploity.


Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
So what exactly are you saying with this post?
that other guy said this was the place where it showed that providing a flank and flanking were defined in different sections.

They aren't, in order to flank, you have to threaten in melee

woah woah woah, where does it say that?

anyway, i'm not trying to steal weapon properties, i'm trying to have sneak attack apply due to the target i am flanking.

there is no evidence to suggest i stop flanking the moment i start making a ranged attack or casting a spell. people just WANT it to only work on melee stuff in every regard, but the fact of the matter is, the opener interpretation works better, and isn't even that exploity.

In the definition for threatened squares it specifically says you must be in melee.

In order to flank the opponent must be in a threatened square.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
So what exactly are you saying with this post?
that other guy said this was the place where it showed that providing a flank and flanking were defined in different sections.

They aren't, in order to flank, you have to threaten in melee

woah woah woah, where does it say that?

anyway, i'm not trying to steal weapon properties, i'm trying to have sneak attack apply due to the target i am flanking.

there is no evidence to suggest i stop flanking the moment i start making a ranged attack or casting a spell. people just WANT it to only work on melee stuff in every regard, but the fact of the matter is, the opener interpretation works better, and isn't even that exploity.

In the definition for threatened squares it specifically says you must be in melee.

In order to flank the opponent must be in a threatened square.

no the part in flank relation to it. (but that was mostly a joke, the other 2 sentences were what i was actually arguing.)


To threaten you must be able to make a melee attack.
If you cannot, then you are not threatening.


RumpinRufus wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Is flanking or flanked on the list of conditions?

"Flying" is also not on the list of conditions, but the rules refer to "flying" creatures, e.g., the spell Sirocco.

Yes. Flying is something a creature is doing. It is not passive. Flanking is the same thing. Let's explore this.

Flying in Pathfinder is defined as a special type of movement. A flying* creature is a creature that has a natural fly speed, or is flying via magic, and is actually moving through the air (a.k.a. flying) at the point which this is relevant to a spell, class ability or feat that requires it.

Flanking in Pathfinder is a defined state of action. A flanking** creature is a creature that is threatening an opponent with a melee weapon that he intends to attack with, AND has another ally on the opposite side of said opponent that also threatens the same opponent, at the point which this is relevant to a spell, class ability or feat that requires it.

It's interesting to note, that with either case, the -ing suffix means that the word that precedes it is being done, or is in action at that moment. It is not a passive state.
A condition, on the other hand, is a passive*** state. Once you've been afflicted with a condition, no action is required by the character that has it to keep it going during it's duration. It is passive.

*Please note that a creature with the fly spell or other similar magic cast on them, and is walking on the ground, is not actually flying.
**Please note that you can not threaten with a ranged weapon.
***With the possible exception of the "grappled" condition.

EDIT: all better


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

To threaten you must be able to make a melee attack.

If you cannot, then you are not threatening.

if you have to attack to threaten, how do you make AoO.

edit: ah "able", yes a rogue with a dagger is able, so they threaten, what is the point of this post?

like for instance, there is a problem with this, a rogue without his standard action cannot make a melee attack, but can still threaten and make AoO.


Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

To threaten you must be able to make a melee attack.

If you cannot, then you are not threatening.

if you have to attack to threaten, how do you make AoO.

edit: ah "able", yes a rogue with a dagger is able, so they threaten, what is the point of this post?

like for instance, there is a problem with this, a rogue without his standard action cannot make a melee attack, but can still threaten and make AoO.

You do not threaten with a ranged weapon since it cannot make a melee attack, therefore the enemy is not threatened and further it cannot be flanked.


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

To threaten you must be able to make a melee attack.

If you cannot, then you are not threatening.

if you have to attack to threaten, how do you make AoO.

edit: ah "able", yes a rogue with a dagger is able, so they threaten, what is the point of this post?

like for instance, there is a problem with this, a rogue without his standard action cannot make a melee attack, but can still threaten and make AoO.

You do not threaten with a ranged weapon since it cannot make a melee attack, therefore the enemy is not threatened and further it cannot be flanked.

so what snap shot would fix this? I don't think so.

anyway you are making a ranged attack while able to make a melee attack, so still no issues.

for instance if for some reason i could use a swift action to make an attack, i could still melee attack DURING my ranged attack.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Flanking in Pathfinder is a defined state of action. A flanking** creature is a creature that is threatening an opponent with a melee weapon that he intends to attack with, AND has another ally on the opposite side of said opponent that also threatens the same opponent with a melee weapon he or she intends to attack with a melee weapon, or is attacking the same round with said melee weapon, at the point which this is relevant to a spell, class ability or feat that requires it.

Really, is that how flanking is defined? We better get all those 7 Str wizards holding daggers a copy of the rulebook you're using, because I'm sure it will come as a shock to them that they might have to actually intend to attack with that dagger (gasp!) for their rogue buddy to get his flank on.


If you had 4 attacks a round, and went stab/stab/shoot/stab, you'd only get SA damage on the stabs, UNLESS the creature had also lost it's DEX to AC, then you'd get the SA on the shoot too.


RumpinRufus wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Flanking in Pathfinder is a defined state of action. A flanking** creature is a creature that is threatening an opponent with a melee weapon that he intends to attack with, AND has another ally on the opposite side of said opponent that also threatens the same opponent with a melee weapon he or she intends to attack with a melee weapon, or is attacking the same round with said melee weapon, at the point which this is relevant to a spell, class ability or feat that requires it.
Really, is that how flanking is defined? Because we better get all those 7 Str wizards a copy of the rulebook you're using, because I'm sure it will come as a shock to them that they might have to actually intend to attack with that dagger (gasp!) for their rogue buddy to get his flank on.

Does he threaten with spells, or provoke with them? I guess I'm not understanding your point here.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:

If you had 4 attacks a round, and went stab/stab/shoot/stab, you'd only get SA damage on the stabs, UNLESS the creature had also lost it's DEX to AC, then you'd get the SA on the shoot too.

what you're lacking is "why". because you're not likely to find one worded well enough to fix all the issues with not allowing this slight hole in flanking's wording allowing sneak attack dice to be added to ranged attacks if you're flanking.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Flanking in Pathfinder is a defined state of action. A flanking** creature is a creature that is threatening an opponent with a melee weapon that he intends to attack with, AND has another ally on the opposite side of said opponent that also threatens the same opponent with a melee weapon he or she intends to attack with a melee weapon, or is attacking the same round with said melee weapon, at the point which this is relevant to a spell, class ability or feat that requires it.
Really, is that how flanking is defined? Because we better get all those 7 Str wizards a copy of the rulebook you're using, because I'm sure it will come as a shock to them that they might have to actually intend to attack with that dagger (gasp!) for their rogue buddy to get his flank on.

Does he threaten with spells, or provoke with them? I guess I'm not understanding your point here.

the wizard has a dagger, so he provides a flank, even though he keeps casting shocking grasp...


Sorry, reading comprehension is assumed here. My apologies.

Book says "melee attack", not "during the round in which you use a melee attack". No way around that.

Now that you've brought it up though, perhaps I've stumbled into the "I'm Gonna Argue Till I Get My Way" forum...

Hmm, saves me some time then. Thank you!


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:

Sorry, reading comprehension is assumed here. My apologies.

Book says "melee attack", not "during the round in which you use a melee attack". No way around that.

Now that you've brought it up though, perhaps I've stumbled into the "I'm Gonna Argue Till I Get My Way" forum...

Hmm, saves me some time then. Thank you!

we've found that rare guy actually arguing that you have to be making a melee attack to flank?

he must REALLY hate rogues, they'll never get a flank off in his game.


Actually, if he holds the charge on shocking grasp I'm pretty sure he is considered armed.

Also you cannot make an attack in the middle of making another attack. When you make an attack with a ranged weapon you are not capable of making that attack with a melee weapon, and thus it is not a threatening attack and does not flank.

Being threatening requires melee. The attack has to be melee. You don't threaten when not making melee attacks.


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

Reference?

HangarFlying wrote:
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.

Who said they need to be separate ideas? The point still stands if you consider the second paragraph merely a clarification of the first - an explanation of when a target qualifies as being flanked. If that criteria is met and you're attacking with a melee weapon, you then receive a 'flanking bonus' - if not, you're just flanking but receive no inherent bonus simply from the act of flanking itself.

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

This question is a logical fallacy, specifically 'begging the question'.

One can be flanking a target and not receive the flanking bonus by being in a position which qualifies as flanking under the flanking criteria, yet not receive the bonus because it is not a melee weapon. This is pretty simple logic to follow - my question is, how could a target be physically flanked and NOT be counted as flanked simply because you don't receive a bonus intended specifically for melee attacks? It flies in the face of basic logic that a ranged attack can never flank because we know that flanking is quite literally the act of attacking an enemy on two opposing fronts - the only thing you've proven by this point is that the act of flanking confers no additional bonus in and of itself when using a ranged weapon.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

Actually, if he holds the charge on shocking grasp I'm pretty sure he is considered armed.

Also you cannot make an attack in the middle of making another attack. When you make an attack with a ranged weapon you are not capable of making that attack with a melee weapon, and thus it is not a threatening attack and does not flank.

Being threatening requires melee. The attack has to be melee. You don't threaten when not making melee attacks.

if that were true swift actions to augment attacks wouldn't work. (AKA i can attack, register that i hit, use my swift action to make it do extra damage, and apply the damage only after making the to-hit roll). in essence i'm saying i rolled to-hit with my range weapon, and then used a swift action to do a melee attack, rolled to-hit then damage, and then rolled damage for my ranged attack.

and you still have yet to prove that that making a ranged attack actually removes your threatening, until then i'm just herp derping around looking at the snap shot feat. basically if all that is required is to threaten, then snap shot is weird, like really weird, in that all i need is snap shot (Rays)


Bandw2 wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Sorry, reading comprehension is assumed here. My apologies.

Book says "melee attack", not "during the round in which you use a melee attack". No way around that.

Now that you've brought it up though, perhaps I've stumbled into the "I'm Gonna Argue Till I Get My Way" forum...

Hmm, saves me some time then. Thank you!

we've found that rare guy actually arguing that you have to be making a melee attack to flank?

he must REALLY hate rogues, they'll never get a flank off in his game.

??

They can always flank if they use a melee weapon to do so...? Oh I see.
I used the same phrasing twice. How silly of me.

And also, a mage using a touch spell is considered armed, and threatens, and can flank.
He does not flank with a ranged touch spell, nor does he get SA with it (if he also has the sneak attack or similar class ability).
Unless, of course, he is an Arcane Trickster.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Sorry, reading comprehension is assumed here. My apologies.

Book says "melee attack", not "during the round in which you use a melee attack". No way around that.

Now that you've brought it up though, perhaps I've stumbled into the "I'm Gonna Argue Till I Get My Way" forum...

Hmm, saves me some time then. Thank you!

we've found that rare guy actually arguing that you have to be making a melee attack to flank?

he must REALLY hate rogues, they'll never get a flank off in his game.

??

They can always flank if they use a melee weapon to do so...? Oh I see.
I used the same phrasing twice. How silly of me.

And also, a mage using a touch spell is considered armed, and threatens, and can flank.
He does not flank with a ranged touch spell, nor does he get SA with it (if he also has the sneak attack or similar class ability).

no i mean the wizard with a dagger, is flanking for the rogue on his turn even though he used and is only planning on using spells, which i guess should have been ray of frost to hit the point home.

and snap shot allows you to threaten with a bow or whatever, do you still not flank? it's pretty obvious you don't get the +2, but i still say that that is the only portion that "when making a melee attack" is referring to.

because if you can only flank during a melee attack, then you can never be considered flanking when it isn't your turn, which flies in the face of most of the rules on flanking and most of the material using flanking.


Yes, if you have a feat or class ability that specifically overrides the base rules, then flank away with your ranged weapon and do sneak attack damage!

I don't know if such feats or class abilities exist, but that would certainly be a case of "specific overruling general"


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes, if you have a feat or class ability that specifically overrides the base rules, then flank away with your ranged weapon and do sneak attack damage!

I don't know if such feats or class abilities exist, but that would certainly be a case of "specific overruling general"

snap shot simply allows you to threaten, it makes no mention of flanking, which is why I brought it up.

but still you haven't clearly explained(to me at least), do you mean that literally you can only flank during a melee attack? or just that the target must intend to make a melee attack? or some other third option that i haven't grasped.

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

all the bolded appears to check out when a rogue is flanking a target with a dagger and casts ray of frost.


Hmm. Let's look at Snap Shot.

PRD wrote:


Snap Shot (Combat)

With a ranged weapon, you can take advantage of any opening in your opponent's defenses.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +6.

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

Normal: While wielding a ranged weapon, you threaten no squares and can make no attacks of opportunity with that weapon.

Well, I would say this feat does allow you to provide flanking, because the ranged weapon now threatens.

"While wielding a ranged weapon, you threaten no squares..." which is overriden by this feat.
It does not override the melee attack requirement for a rogue's sneak attack, however.
Why do you think it should?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
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.

calls out flanked as a condition a character can have.

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.

ally flanking the target when it isn't their turn/ they aren't attacking.

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

pretty straight forward, allies while not your turn, while YOU are attacking, meaning they are not.

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.

allies flanking while they aren't attacking.

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).

two people flanking on separate turns and since you gain +4 constitution i can only assume you gain it for longer than a single attack.

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.

no melee attack needed or mentioned.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:


It does not override the melee attack requirement for a rogue's sneak attack, however.
Why do you think it should?

because sneak attack has no such requirement?

why do you think it has a requirement?


Bandw2 wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes, if you have a feat or class ability that specifically overrides the base rules, then flank away with your ranged weapon and do sneak attack damage!

I don't know if such feats or class abilities exist, but that would certainly be a case of "specific overruling general"

snap shot simply allows you to threaten, it makes no mention of flanking, which is why I brought it up.

but still you haven't clearly explained(to me at least), do you mean that literally you can only flank during a melee attack? or just that the target must intend to make a melee attack? or some other third option that i haven't grasped.

This is what I meant:

PRD 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 my over zealous attempt to be snarky, I over used verbiage that apparently invalidated that entire post. It happens.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:


This is what I meant:
PRD 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 my over zealous attempt to be snarky, I over used verbiage that apparently invalidated that entire post. It happens.

and this is what I mean

Quote:
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.

no mention of melee and no one denies you need melee to gain the +2 to-hit.


Bandw2 wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:


It does not override the melee attack requirement for a rogue's sneak attack, however.
Why do you think it should?

because sneak attack has no such requirement?

why do you think it has a requirement?

Because:

PRD wrote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

What is flanking?

PRD wrote:

Flanking

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.

I thought this had already been pointed out...

401 to 450 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.