Why Doesn't Snap Shot allow you to Flank?

[Koshimo]

So I just started playing a Archery Slayer, and I have been reading all the threads discussing ranged flanking and why it can't be done, and that Snapshot only gives the flanking bonus to your ally if you are in the proper position.

My question is why? One of my major understandings of Pathfinder is that Specifics overrule general, and that the reason you do not flank with a ranged weapon is because it has a range of 0ft in melee and therefor does not threaten opponents in that sense.

So why then when snapshot gives you that 5ft and then 15ft of threatened range are you not considered flanking? all this ruling seems to accomplish is further gank sneak attack which is a highly situational class feature anyways.

Has there ever been an official FAQ answering this?

To me this just feels like more rogue hate.

If anyone has any answers that aren't simply "it just doesn't work that way" I would love to hear them.

[BloodyManticore]

It doesnt work because flanking starts off with "when making a mele attack" so it doesnt work because by the definition of flanking you have to make a mele attack

[Kazaan]

The only problem I can see with ranged flanking is getting the positioning correct. You need to be able to draw a line from the center of one flanker to the center of the other and it must pass through a pair of opposite sides of the flanked target. What you're probably seeing is referring to this:

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.

So a character with Snap Shot can threaten and cause a different character to get the flanking bonus on their melee attack, but the snap shooter, himself, doesn't get a flanking bonus to his ranged attacks because only melee attacks benefit from flanking. But that doesn't mean that if you threaten with a ranged weapon by some explicit exception to default rules, that threatening doesn't count as normal threatening. Specific trumps general. Generally, ranged attacks don't threaten, thus they don't provide flanking. Specifically, Snap Shot allows you to threaten with a ranged attack so you can provide flanking bonus to an ally making a melee attack, but that ally doesn't provide flanking to your ranged attacks.

[Koshimo]

Kazaan wrote:

The only problem I can see with ranged flanking is getting the positioning correct. You need to be able to draw a line from the center of one flanker to the center of the other and it must pass through a pair of opposite sides of the flanked target. What you're probably seeing is referring to this:

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.

So a character with Snap Shot can threaten and cause a different character to get the flanking bonus on their melee attack, but the snap shooter, himself, doesn't get a flanking bonus to his ranged attacks because only melee attacks benefit from flanking. But that doesn't mean that if you threaten with a ranged weapon by some explicit exception to default rules, that threatening doesn't count as normal threatening. Specific trumps general. Generally, ranged attacks don't threaten, thus they don't provide flanking. Specifically, Snap Shot allows you to threaten with a ranged attack so you can provide flanking bonus to an ally making a melee attack, but that ally doesn't provide flanking to your ranged attacks.

Ok but nowhere in snap shot does it say anything about providing a flanking bonus so unless again there is an FAQ or errata somewhere people have decided that because you threaten the square you can provide a flanking bonus but not taking the next logical step forward and say you can benefit from flanking as well

the general rule of it being a melee attack is because outside of snap shot (or possibly class abilities i don't know of other situations that may affect this) a ranged weapon never threatens so it would not provide a flanking bonus now you do so why arent you flanking i feel this is even more relevant with the first snapshot feat because you are literally in melee range just like a normal combatant and if you are threatening you should receive the bonus

[UnArcaneElection]

Also, you can threaten and flank with a Reach weapon at the same range as Snap Shot, so the difference seeks odd even though it is Rules as Written.

[Koshimo]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Also, you can threaten and flank with a Reach weapon at the same range as Snap Shot, so the difference seeks odd even though it is Rules as Written.

exactly

what i really feel is they wrote the flanking rules as "melee attack" because it was simpler than writing out "against any opponent you threaten within range" because at that point snap shot wasn't released and there was no reason to make it wordier than it already was

[Claxon]

The issue is, and the developers have stated it repeatedly in conversation on this board (because this question comes up often), that they do not want ranged flanking. It is not a thing.

Flanking specifically requires melee. That is the developers stance.

I suspect this will turn into a 10 page thread just like the last thread about this, but the response is no.

Flanking is for melee only.

[Gauss]

Claxon, I don't remember seeing Dev response on this. Could you post the links? (Not disagreeing, just don't remember.)

[Koshimo]

ok fine "no because we said so" not because it makes any sense

thats fine final answer just goes by GM discretion then since i don't/will never play PFS

[Gauss]

Koshimo, I don't think it is "no because we said so" so much as "no, the rules say 'melee' and ranged is not 'melee'".

Yes, it allows you to threaten but threatening is not what allows you to benefit from flanking. Even if you do not threaten with your melee weapon (unarmed strikes for example) you still benefit from flanking because an unarmed strike is melee even though it does not threaten.

Put another way:
Threatening is what gives people the ability to provide a flanking bonus.
Melee (threatening is not required) is what is required to benefit from a threatening flanker.

[Nicos]

Koshimo wrote:

ok fine "no because we said so" not because it makes any sense

The rules are crystal clear it doesn't matter if that make sense to you or not.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Koshimo wrote:

ok fine "no because we said so" not because it makes any sense

thats fine final answer just goes by GM discretion then since i don't/will never play PFS

I suppose it could count as flanking at GM discretion if your GM regularly ignores the rules in order to make you more powerful.

[Koshimo]

Nicos wrote:

Koshimo wrote:

ok fine "no because we said so" not because it makes any sense

The rules are crystal clear it doesn't matter if that make sense to you or not.

im indifferent on the subject as i really don't care about raw because again i don't play PFS i was just curious is there ever was an official FAQ or Errata that talked about this again as opposed to "no we just say this doesnt work" apparently there hasnt been i have gotten my answer im good

[Koshimo]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Koshimo wrote:

ok fine "no because we said so" not because it makes any sense

thats fine final answer just goes by GM discretion then since i don't/will never play PFS

I suppose it could count as flanking at GM discretion if your GM regularly ignores the rules in order to make you more powerful.

considering in the very first session with this group i got a free cloak of resist +1 and a +2 weapon at lvl 3 i don't think thats something i have to be worrying about as far as being "too powerful"

[Charon's Little Helper]

Koshimo wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Koshimo wrote:

ok fine "no because we said so" not because it makes any sense

The rules are crystal clear it doesn't matter if that make sense to you or not.

im indifferent on the subject as i really don't care about raw because again i don't play PFS i was just curious is there ever was an official FAQ or Errata that talked about this again as opposed to "no we just say this doesnt work" apparently there hasnt been i have gotten my answer im good

There doesn't need to be an official FAQ or Errata because the rule is clear on the subject. You just don't like it.

If you want to propose a houserule - that's fine. But that's exactly what it would be. It's not an ambiguous subject.

[Koshimo]

not saying it should be ambiguous everyone should play the way they see fit unless its an organized setting

i was just questioning for clarification before bringing it to my DM so i could come fully prepared

[Claxon]

Gauss wrote:

Claxon, I don't remember seeing Dev response on this. Could you post the links? (Not disagreeing, just don't remember.)

I cannot post the link because I do not remember in exactly which thread about ranged flanking it was stated. There are many. And they are tediously long.

While I understand your reticence on the subject, please understand that I have no desire to spend an hour or so attempting to find the post. Sorry that I cannot be more helpful in that respect.

[Gauss]

My reticence? LOL, perhaps you can explain how you figure I an reticent. I am simply asking a question. Not being silent, uncommunicative, or restrained.

[Canthin]

Claxon wrote:

Gauss wrote:

Claxon, I don't remember seeing Dev response on this. Could you post the links? (Not disagreeing, just don't remember.)

I cannot post the link because I do not remember in exactly which thread about ranged flanking it was stated. There are many. And they are tediously long.

While I understand your reticence on the subject, please understand that I have no desire to spend an hour or so attempting to find the post. Sorry that I cannot be more helpful in that respect.

Latest one I think was The Sneak Attack / Gang Up FAQ one. It's 645 posts long. (and somewhere in there a Dev shows up, but that doesn't stop the arguments).

[bbangerter]

Gauss, here is a specific link to dev commentary in the thread Canthin just referred to.

Mark Seifter

[Claxon]

You are being reserved (in acceptance), and thusly reticent. At least from my view point. In any event that's not really important here.

I cannot provide a quote because there are too many posts to sift through.

[Gauss]

Thanks for the link.

I don't see where he states that he (or any Dev) does not want ranged flanking, only a confirmation of how the rules work as currently written.

[Gauss]

Claxon, interesting point of view. One does not usually associate "reserved" with "in acceptance".

[Kazaan]

Flanking relies on threatening and nothing else. That's RAW. If you make a melee attack, and an ally threatens from the correct position, you gain a bonus on your melee attack. It doesn't specify one way or another that that threatening must come from melee; it's just the threatening that's important. Normally, ranged attacks don't threaten and there are very few rules elements that allow for ranged attacks to threaten and, when they do, it's usually at very short range. The developers can state their opinions on the board, but by their own rules, unless it is an official FAQ or errata, it doesn't count. The rules of the game, as written, say that all that is required to get a flanking bonus is that an ally threatens the target from the opposite side. If the devs have a different intention, it is their responsibility to issue an official change; something along the lines of, "threatens with a melee weapon". Until then, by RAW, threatening with Snap Shot provides flanking bonus to your teammate.

[Mark Seifter]

Kazaan wrote:

Flanking relies on threatening and nothing else. That's RAW. If you make a melee attack, and an ally threatens from the correct position, you gain a bonus on your melee attack. It doesn't specify one way or another that that threatening must come from melee; it's just the threatening that's important. Normally, ranged attacks don't threaten and there are very few rules elements that allow for ranged attacks to threaten and, when they do, it's usually at very short range. The developers can state their opinions on the board, but by their own rules, unless it is an official FAQ or errata, it doesn't count. The rules of the game, as written, say that all that is required to get a flanking bonus is that an ally threatens the target from the opposite side. If the devs have a different intention, it is their responsibility to issue an official change; something along the lines of, "threatens with a melee weapon". Until then, by RAW, threatening with Snap Shot provides flanking bonus to your teammate.

Threatening with Snap Shot certainly does provide a flanking bonus to your melee teammate. You are 100% correct. But the Snap Shot character isn't getting flanking benefits herself since she isn't making a melee attack.

And you're also correct that posts are non-official.

[Gauss]

Kazaan, I don't think Mark (or anyone else for that matter) is saying that an archer with Snap Shot cannot provide a flank. What people are saying is that they cannot benefit from a flank.

Edit: Ninja'd by the man himself. :)

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

If snap shot specifically said that it lets you use a bow-and-arrow attack as a melee attack, then it would benefit from flanking. Since it doesn't, and it would have been very easy for it to have been written that way, and there has been ample opportunity for a FAQ or errata since then to have been issued, we should consider it to be settled, until such time as a FAQ or errata is in fact issued. An archer with snap shot threatens, and therefore an ally across from her making a melee attack will gain a flanking bonus, but the archer herself will not as only melee attacks gain a flanking bonus.

[Koshimo]

Sorry for starting up arguments as i said in my last statement i was simply trying to compile as much information to bring to my DM so i could have an intelligent discussion and see if he rules it as anything other than raw

[James Risner]

Koshimo wrote:

don't care about raw

there ever was an official FAQ or Errata

If you don't care about the RAW, then ask your GM. He is empowered via Rule 0 to do as he wishes.

I seriously doubt this will ever hit FAQ (because this is directly answered in the Gang Up FAQ) or Errata (because the developers have made it clear the rule says Flanking is melee only.)

[Gwen Smith]

There are a couple of new feats designed to get archers the equivalent of a flanking bonus, but they are teamwork feats:
Coordinated Shot
Enfilading Fire

Those might give your GM a starting point for constructing a ranged flanking rule.

[Mark Hoover]

So a fighter with a familiar, snap shot and these 2 feats above could, conceivably receive a +4 bonus to hit against a flanked foe if their familiar were part of the flank? And then isn't there another ranged feat for getting an AoO from Ranged Tactics? This all bodes well for my halfling slinger build...

[Sniggevert]

Mark Hoover wrote:

So a fighter with a familiar, snap shot and these 2 feats above could, conceivably receive a +4 bonus to hit against a flanked foe if their familiar were part of the flank? And then isn't there another ranged feat for getting an AoO from Ranged Tactics? This all bodes well for my halfling slinger build...

If the familiar or ally it was flanking with had (or counted as having) those feats, then yes you would get an untyped +4 bonus to hit from those 2 feats.

Snap shot permits taking AoO's with a ranged weapon, since you threaten...there probably are other feats that improve upon that too.

[UnArcaneElection]

Gwen Smith wrote:

There are a couple of new feats designed to get archers the equivalent of a flanking bonus, but they are teamwork feats:

Coordinated Shot
Enfilading Fire

Those might give your GM a starting point for constructing a ranged flanking rule.

And if you have Solo Tactics, your allies don't even have to have these teamwork feats. As far as I know, this means you need a 3 level dip in Inquisitor (unless something else can snag Solo Tactics).

[Cheapy]

So rogues can't get easy sneak attack damage on a fighting style that excels at many low-damage attacks.

[Koshimo]

Cheapy wrote:

So rogues can't get easy sneak attack damage on a fighting style that excels at many low-damage attacks.

aka because pathfinder hates rogues

its not bad enough that you cant get SA outside of 30ft and as a straight rogue cant get the feats to do this until 8th and 12th levels but straight out no doesnt work

[wraithstrike]

Koshimo wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

So rogues can't get easy sneak attack damage on a fighting style that excels at many low-damage attacks.

aka because pathfinder hates rogues

This nonsense needs to stop.

Some people, not me, think the rogue is fine as is. If Paizo were to reword the official rogue class it would be looked at as catering to those power gamers who want MOAR power. Feel free to provide another insult they might use as necessary.

Now we do have unchained coming out so us power gamers can have the rogue at our table, the rogue can hopefully have nice things, and everyone can get what they want without any insults being thrown around.

[James Risner]

Koshimo wrote:

aka because pathfinder hates rogues

More properly, doing more than 100 damage in a turn at 12th level should be hard. A rogue wouldn't have much trouble doing that that at 12th with Sneaking Ranged Bow shots.

[Koshimo]

James Risner wrote:

Koshimo wrote:

aka because pathfinder hates rogues

More properly, doing more than 100 damage in a turn at 12th level should be hard. A rogue wouldn't have much trouble doing that that at 12th with Sneaking Ranged Bow shots.

quickly putting together an average wbl lvl 12 swashbuckler which this board seems to hate (and probably forgetting things) and no buffs other than haste gets 4 attacks lowest at + 24 dealing an average of 29.5 damage not including the 1 probable crit per round and not counting parry and riposting

so without too much trouble a lvl 12 swash gets 118 dpr without too much optimization and really fleshing out the build add in a crit and parry and riposte and you can add in another 50 damage or so, and thats before using panache

so 100 dpr really isnt as amazing as you make it out to be

[Charon's Little Helper]

Koshimo wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Koshimo wrote:

aka because pathfinder hates rogues

More properly, doing more than 100 damage in a turn at 12th level should be hard. A rogue wouldn't have much trouble doing that that at 12th with Sneaking Ranged Bow shots.

quickly putting together an average wbl lvl 12 swashbuckler which this board seems to hate (and probably forgetting things) and no buffs other than haste gets 4 attacks lowest at + 24 dealing an average of 29.5 damage not including the 1 probable crit per round and not counting parry and riposting

so without too much trouble a lvl 12 swash gets 118 dpr without too much optimization and really fleshing out the build add in a crit and parry and riposte and you can add in another 50 damage or so, and thats before using panache

so 100 dpr really isnt as amazing as you make it out to be

That's not how DPR works. You don't get to count the whole damage from every swing, (Especially not the iterative at -10) and the crit doesn't add much to their damage anyway since it doesn't multiply the precise strike.

[Koshimo]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Koshimo wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Koshimo wrote:

aka because pathfinder hates rogues

More properly, doing more than 100 damage in a turn at 12th level should be hard. A rogue wouldn't have much trouble doing that that at 12th with Sneaking Ranged Bow shots.

quickly putting together an average wbl lvl 12 swashbuckler which this board seems to hate (and probably forgetting things) and no buffs other than haste gets 4 attacks lowest at + 24 dealing an average of 29.5 damage not including the 1 probable crit per round and not counting parry and riposting

so without too much trouble a lvl 12 swash gets 118 dpr without too much optimization and really fleshing out the build add in a crit and parry and riposte and you can add in another 50 damage or so, and thats before using panache

so 100 dpr really isnt as amazing as you make it out to be

That's not how DPR works. You don't get to count the whole damage from every swing, (Especially not the iterative at -10) and the crit doesn't add much to their damage anyway since it doesn't multiply the precise strike.

I understand that my guess with those to hit bonuses you probably get 4 hits including the parry and riposte per round and the crit in my calculation would add on average another 17.5 damage and if you really want to nova and uses more panache these numbers could skyrocket, and again this is without any buffs or anything from your party members or combat conditions

[James Risner]

Koshimo wrote:

lvl 12 swash gets 118 dpr without too much optimization

100 DPR is very difficult, 200 DPR is just about unheard of, and 300 DPR is impossible to my knowledge.

DPR calculates miss chance. For example the DPR of an Ooze druid is around 100-200 range, but maximum is in the 600 to 700 damage range.

[wraithstrike]

100 DPR at level 12 is hard for a rogue*, but for other martial classes it is not that difficult.

*I am not talking about the sap master rogue.

[Gauss]

Just about any martial class can pump out 100DPR by level 12. My halfling Cavalier will do that in a single hit by level 9.

[Claxon]

I don't know what my DPR was at level 12, but my archery ranger was certainly putting up more than 100 dpr a round at level 12. At level 15 I was putting out about 250 dpr with a bard buffing. Without the bards buff it would probably be closer to 200, but still. A few levels shouldn't double damage output.

[James Risner]

Ok, I tend to use the metrics set aside in the DPR Olympics threads. In that context, only a couple "legal" builds (builds that followed the metrics and rules regard wealth and buffs) managed to break 100 DPR.

DPR Olympics

[Claxon]

Most of those builds all look to be level 10. And most of them were very close to 100 dpr to begin with. Add in 2 more levels, which is where most of those builds will get another iterative attack, and add in that most classes unlock something big between level 10-12 and you should see a decent damage bump.

I would wager that most builds by level 12 should be doing 100 dpr on average.

There is also a big difference in doing 100 damage in a round, and doing 100 dpr on average. One is just about the possible damage, and one takes into account the likelihood of hitting.

[Nicos]

Kazaan wrote:

The rules of the game, as written, say that all that is required to get a flanking bonus is that an ally threatens the target from the opposite side.

Weird...I remember the word "melee attacks" are written in the rules.

[Kazaan]

Nicos wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

The rules of the game, as written, say that all that is required to get a flanking bonus is that an ally threatens the target from the opposite side.

Weird...I remember the word "melee attacks" are written in the rules.

Quote mining at its finest. When you remove the original context, it lacks the original meaning. My third sentence from that post clearly establishes the context that I'm talking about a character making a melee attack. But the point of contention was whether a character using Snap Shot to threaten provides their teammate making a melee attack with a flanking bonus. Once the context is established, I don't need to keep repeating it over and over again because that was only a foundation for the point I was making, not the point itself. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.

[Koshimo]

Kazaan wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

The rules of the game, as written, say that all that is required to get a flanking bonus is that an ally threatens the target from the opposite side.

Weird...I remember the word "melee attacks" are written in the rules.

Quote mining at its finest. When you remove the original context, it lacks the original meaning. My third sentence from that post clearly establishes the context that I'm talking about a character making a melee attack. But the point of contention was whether a character using Snap Shot to threaten provides their teammate making a melee attack with a flanking bonus. Once the context is established, I don't need to keep repeating it over and over again because that was only a foundation for the point I was making, not the point itself. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.

lord knows we can't have reading comprehension that would make 90% of internet arguments dissolve immediately

we must pick out the one line phrase sentence part of an argument that isn't 100% infallible and beat it with a giant stick until the other person gives up defending their originally viable idea

[claudekennilol]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Koshimo wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Koshimo wrote:

ok fine "no because we said so" not because it makes any sense

The rules are crystal clear it doesn't matter if that make sense to you or not.

im indifferent on the subject as i really don't care about raw because again i don't play PFS i was just curious is there ever was an official FAQ or Errata that talked about this again as opposed to "no we just say this doesnt work" apparently there hasnt been i have gotten my answer im good

There doesn't need to be an official FAQ or Errata because the rule is clear on the subject. You just don't like it.

If you want to propose a houserule - that's fine. But that's exactly what it would be. It's not an ambiguous subject.

Because they've never put an errata into the FAQ on something that was already clear because they just wanted to change it?