archer flanking bonus


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 297 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

kinevon wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

As written, bows don't/can't grant flanking with ranged attacks...

At our table we allow it, if you have Snapshot. That is a houserule though.

Bows cannot gain the flanking condition, as they are ranged attacks.

If you threaten with a bow, using Snap Shot or equivalent, your melee ally can gain flanking from you.

That's exactly what alexd said. You can't get flanking with a ranged attack by the rules. He just house rules that snap shot allows it despite the exiting rules.

Grand Lodge

Imbicatus wrote:
kinevon wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

As written, bows don't/can't grant flanking with ranged attacks...

At our table we allow it, if you have Snapshot. That is a houserule though.

Bows cannot gain the flanking condition, as they are ranged attacks.

If you threaten with a bow, using Snap Shot or equivalent, your melee ally can gain flanking from you.

That's exactly what alexd said. You can't get flanking with a ranged attack by the rules. He just house rules that snap shot allows it despite the exiting rules.

Actually, if you read what I wrote, which uses the rules, the bow user cannot gain flankiong, as he is using a ranged weapon.

His melee ally, however, will be flanking an opponent between them, as long as the bow user still has an unused AoO available with his bow, and he is close enough to threaten that enemy.

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.

Nowhere does it say that your ally has to be threatening with a melee attack, just threatening. Snap Shot gives an archer the ability to threaten an enemy with his bow.

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.


You guys are arguing the same side, just misreading each other's words. You are both saying they can flank (for the sake of an ally) but gain no bonuses.

Scarab Sages

No one was disagreeing with that. If you look at the beginning of this thread I said so in the third post. That is not the question at the moment. The ongoing discussion was about gaining the benefit of flanking with a ranged weapon, not enabling flanking for others.


James Risner wrote:
Cevah wrote:

The rules of grammar do not support you.

Each paragraph is a *separate* idea, not predicated upon the preceding one.
Got a link where that is proven?

How about Merriam-Webster?

James Risner wrote:

That no writer can ever violate that grammar rule?

Got a developer quote proving your interpretation is the only valid one?

Any writer can break the rules. Sometime even deliberately. However, if they don't obey the rules, they cause confusion by making others make assumptions they did not intend.

James Risner wrote:

Got any logic to support the concept that the description of how you know you are flanking is separate from the benefits of flanking?

Got anything?

Yep. Merriam-Webster.

Chess Pwn 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."

Okay cool, this paragraph told us what flanking is and how you get it. Onto the next paragraph

Nope. It told us how to get a bonus.

Chess Pwn wrote:

"When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle"

Okay so this first bit tells us what this paragraph is talking about.

Agreed. "Do two characters flank?".

Chess Pwn wrote:
This one is about making sure if two character flank one in the middle. Thus we refer back to the definition of flanking to understand what it is we're trying to make sure of.

Why do you refer to a different paragraph when the same & next sentence gives you a test. It is you asking for tortured logic, not me.

/cevah

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cevah wrote:
Why do you refer to a different paragraph when the same & next sentence gives you a test. It is you asking for tortured logic, not me.

All I can say is your logic is tortured.

The developers will never honor this question with an answer again, as they have done so with Gang Up and you ignore that.


James Risner wrote:
The developers will never honor this question with an answer again, as they have done so with Gang Up....

I fear you are right.

Unfortunately, flanking still generates confusion.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Cevah wrote:

The rules of grammar do not support you.

Each paragraph is a *separate* idea, not predicated upon the preceding one.
Got a link where that is proven?
How about Merriam-Webster?

I read through the definition that you linked to, but I must have missed the part stating that the content of every paragraph are logically isolated from the content of other paragraphs in the same work. Can you clarify where the definition states this or anything even remotely close to this?


''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''. 'Flanked' is a condition a creature attacked by two other enemy creatures gets, this means that any creature wich makes the flanked creature being flanked is effectivelly 'flanking' the creature, thus should be able to do sneak attack damage. Beside of that, 'flanking bonus' still seems to be applied only on melee attacks.


"It is written: 'Man shall not live on RAW alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of the GM.'" (CRB 1:1)


Actually I wrote all of my observation in one sinle paragraph because I didnt want to be missunderstood by Cevah xD (kidding)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Xuchilbara wrote:
Actually I wrote all of my observation in one sinle paragraph because I didnt want to be missunderstood by Cevah xD (kidding)

Well you succeeded in being misunderstood by me. Can you elaborate?


Does Snapshot actually do anything?

All humanoids have unarmed strike available to them at all times. Sure, kicking someone might provoke an AoO without Improved Unarmed Strike, and it may be only do non-lethal damage - but neither of those two factors prevent the character from threatening such a melee attack. As such, all humanoid characters threaten when adjacent.

now, again, you will only gain the +2 bonus on your turn when making a melee attack, but as far as whether or not you provide the flanking bonus for an ally - you should always be considered threatening (barring some sort of condition being applied to you such as being bound, stunned, etc).

Scarab Sages

You don't threaten if you are unarmed unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike.

CRB Combat Chapter wrote:
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
James Risner wrote:
Xuchilbara wrote:
Actually I wrote all of my observation in one sinle paragraph because I didnt want to be missunderstood by Cevah xD (kidding)
Well you succeeded in being misunderstood by me. Can you elaborate?

Rule: "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."

Conclusion: The +2 bonus only applies "when making a melee attack" AND "your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner."

Rule: "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."

Conclusion: Whether a creature is flanked is entirely dependent on position. Two ranged attackers can flank if they are on opposite sides.

Effectively, the +2 bonus and flanking are two completely different things. I don't think this is RAI, but it is the 'RAW interpretation' being presented. Note that taking the two sentences as separate would also mean that you don't need to threaten the target to flank it.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

CBDunkerson wrote:
Conclusion: Whether a creature is flanked is entirely dependent on position. Two ranged attackers can flank if they are on opposite sides.

We know you can't ranged flank. We have a FAQ that says so and developers that have said so.

The other interpretation of that sentence is the "When in doubt" is to enlighten readers on how to determine if they are flanked as described in the previous sentence. It is only relevant to the previous sentence.


Question:
Can you draw the Arrow as a free action, and then you use it as a improvised weapon in melee and therefore now grant flanking bonus???


It's a free action to draw it as ammunition, but not a free action to draw it as an improvised weapon.

Regardless, you can have something like a boot blade or barbazu beard or armor spikes or any other number of weapons that doesn't require a hand slot. And this will let you grant flanking to an ally, but your ranged attack still doesn't benefit from it.


good point


CBDunkerson wrote:

Rule: "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."

Conclusion: The +2 bonus only applies "when making a melee attack" AND "your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner."

Rule: "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."

Conclusion: Whether a creature is flanked is entirely dependent on position. Two ranged attackers can flank if they are on opposite sides.

Effectively, the +2 bonus and flanking are two completely different things. I don't think this is RAI, but it is the 'RAW interpretation' being presented. Note that taking the two sentences as separate would also mean that you don't need to threaten the target to flank it.

Flanking:
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.

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.

Flanking isn't separated into sections. The entire section's purpose is to explain in detail how flanking works.

Flanking 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.

So this portion of the rules details what happens and how to obtain flanking.

But wait you ask how exactly do i determine if I'm flanking?

Thankfully the next paragraph of Flanking explains in detail how and why.

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.

The second paragraph is clarifying the first. They don't function independently of each other. They both work in tandem together along with the following;

Flanking wrote:

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.

But Brain in a Jar what if Flanking doesn't mean melee attacks even though it clearly states melee attacks?

Well good thing we have the Gang Up FAQ.

Gang Up 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)

Here is the feat for reference;

Gang Up

The only thing the feat Gang Up does is change the parameters of the second paragraph. It only changes the position needed to gain flanking.

The very same paragraph that people are using to justify ranged flanking.

So the FAQ tells us a few pieces of information.

1. The first sentence explains what the feat actually does.

Gang Up FAQ wrote:
The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent.

2. It then in the second sentence gives two reasons why ranged flanking isn't possible with Gang Up.

Gang Up FAQ wrote:
The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included,

This here is important. Why would the feat need to mention ranged attacks if Flanking is normally allowed with ranged attacks?

Gang Up FAQ wrote:
and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat.

Oh there it is. The feat would need to mention ranged attacks since they are not eligible for Flanking normally.

Ranged attacks don't benefit from Flanking using Gang Up for two reasons.

1. It's not specifically mentioned in the feat. Which would provide a specific rule to trump the general rules of Flanking.

2. Flanking refers to melee attacks normally.

So without a specific rule for ranged weapons; they can't Flank.

Anyone who claims ranged weapons can flank are using a houserule which has no bearing on a Rules Question, in the Rules forum, for a question that has already been answered by a FAQ.

So unless you somehow think your houserule, is more offical than the people who own and publish Pathfinder.

You are wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
It's a free action to draw it as ammunition, but not a free action to draw it as an improvised weapon.

Hue, good catch. I'll have to remember that one for my "Illogical rules" folder.

Scarab Sages

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Claxon wrote:
It's a free action to draw it as ammunition, but not a free action to draw it as an improvised weapon.
Hue, good catch. I'll have to remember that one for my "Illogical rules" folder.

It's not really that illogical. Drawing an arrow to use as ammunition in an bow involves grabbing the knock with two fingers to fit it to a string. If you tried to stab someone with an arrow in a knock grip, it wouldn't do much. To effectively stab, you'd have to hold it by the shaft like a miniature spear. It's a different grip that is harder to assume unless you have training for it (quick draw).


My point is (following statement in combat section) that the entire construct of 'flanking' depends on the flanked creature, not the flankers. A flanked creature needs two enemy creatures to obtain such condition and, by consecuense, the enemy creatures automatically become flankers.

''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''.

It says: ''when the rogue flanks her target'', not ''when the rogue gets the flanking bonus'', and since the target got the flanked condition because of the rogue, then the rogue is flanking (making to be flanked) her target.

What I'm implying here is that the rogue can deal sneak attacks whenever her target gets the flanking condition because of her, not that she would gain flanking bonuses with a ranged attack.

This might sound more confusing than it actually is xD I have some trouble explaining myself sometimes...


I actually shoot bows IRL and it is much quicker to grab it as a weapon than a projectile.

But we're getting off topic now.


Xuchilbara wrote:

My point is (following statement in combat section) that the entire construct of 'flanking' depends on the flanked creature, not the flankers. A flanked creature needs two enemy creatures to obtain such condition and, by consecuense, the enemy creatures automatically become flankers.

''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''.

It says: ''when the rogue flanks her target'', not ''when the rogue gets the flanking bonus'', and since the target got the flanked condition because of the rogue, then the rogue is flanking (making to be flanked) her target.

What I'm implying here is that the rogue can deal sneak attacks whenever her target gets the flanking condition because of her, not that she would gain flanking bonuses with a ranged attack.

This might sound more confusing than it actually is xD I have some trouble explaining myself sometimes...

Flanking isn't a condition applied to an enemy.

Flanking requires a melee attack to benefit from it.

Flanking requires two attackers to be opposite of the target and both need to be able to threaten.

You can't benefit from flanking if you have a ranged weapon. You can only threaten (assuming Snap Shot)the defender to provide an attacker the benefit of Flanking.

The FAQ supports this as does the fact that Flanking ONLY mentions melee attacks.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
Xuchilbara wrote:

My point is (following statement in combat section) that the entire construct of 'flanking' depends on the flanked creature, not the flankers. A flanked creature needs two enemy creatures to obtain such condition and, by consecuense, the enemy creatures automatically become flankers.

''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''.

It says: ''when the rogue flanks her target'', not ''when the rogue gets the flanking bonus'', and since the target got the flanked condition because of the rogue, then the rogue is flanking (making to be flanked) her target.

What I'm implying here is that the rogue can deal sneak attacks whenever her target gets the flanking condition because of her, not that she would gain flanking bonuses with a ranged attack.

This might sound more confusing than it actually is xD I have some trouble explaining myself sometimes...

Flanking isn't a condition applied to an enemy.

Flanking requires a melee attack to benefit from it.

Flanking requires two attackers to be opposite of the target and both need to be able to threaten.

You can't benefit from flanking if you have a ranged weapon. You can only threaten (assuming Snap Shot)the defender to provide an attacker the benefit of Flanking.

The FAQ supports this as does the fact that Flanking ONLY mentions melee attacks.

That was a bit harsh xD . Dont you find a bit tricky the expression ''then the opponent is flanked''? or ''A rogue of 8th level or higher can no longer be flanked''?, Also, the flanking section in Combat only states a 'flanking bonus', but not an intrinsical 'flanking state'.


Xuchilbara wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Xuchilbara wrote:

My point is (following statement in combat section) that the entire construct of 'flanking' depends on the flanked creature, not the flankers. A flanked creature needs two enemy creatures to obtain such condition and, by consecuense, the enemy creatures automatically become flankers.

''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''.

It says: ''when the rogue flanks her target'', not ''when the rogue gets the flanking bonus'', and since the target got the flanked condition because of the rogue, then the rogue is flanking (making to be flanked) her target.

What I'm implying here is that the rogue can deal sneak attacks whenever her target gets the flanking condition because of her, not that she would gain flanking bonuses with a ranged attack.

This might sound more confusing than it actually is xD I have some trouble explaining myself sometimes...

Flanking isn't a condition applied to an enemy.

Flanking requires a melee attack to benefit from it.

Flanking requires two attackers to be opposite of the target and both need to be able to threaten.

You can't benefit from flanking if you have a ranged weapon. You can only threaten (assuming Snap Shot)the defender to provide an attacker the benefit of Flanking.

The FAQ supports this as does the fact that Flanking ONLY mentions melee attacks.

That was a bit harsh xD . Dont you find a bit tricky the expression ''then the opponent is flanked''? or ''A rogue of 8th level or higher can no longer be flanked''?, Also, the flanking section in Combat only states a 'flanking bonus', but not an intrinsical 'flanking state'.

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)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Xuchilbara wrote:
What I'm implying here is that the rogue can deal sneak attacks whenever her target gets the flanking condition because of her, not that she would gain flanking bonuses with a ranged attack

If you are saying she is flanking because she is on an opposite side, and that she has Sneak Attack so she would gain the additional dice, then yes. When she makes a melee attack with flanking, she would gain the dice. If she made a ranged attack in the same position, she wouldn't gain the additional dice. Clear? We agree?


James Risner wrote:
Xuchilbara wrote:
What I'm implying here is that the rogue can deal sneak attacks whenever her target gets the flanking condition because of her, not that she would gain flanking bonuses with a ranged attack
If you are saying she is flanking because she is on an opposite side, and that she has Sneak Attack so she would gain the additional dice, then yes. When she makes a melee attack with flanking, she would gain the dice. If she made a ranged attack in the same position, she wouldn't gain the additional dice. Clear? We agree?

Quite clear, but Im sorry I dont agree =(


I'm not sure how any more crystal clear this could be. We have a line (quoted too many times) from the design team very specifically saying "flanking specifically refers to melee attacks". Boom, that's it, that's the end of the conversation. Black and white, no ambiguity. There are no rules, abilities, feats, text, anything that suggests you can flank with a ranged weapon.


Xuchilbara wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Xuchilbara wrote:
What I'm implying here is that the rogue can deal sneak attacks whenever her target gets the flanking condition because of her, not that she would gain flanking bonuses with a ranged attack
If you are saying she is flanking because she is on an opposite side, and that she has Sneak Attack so she would gain the additional dice, then yes. When she makes a melee attack with flanking, she would gain the dice. If she made a ranged attack in the same position, she wouldn't gain the additional dice. Clear? We agree?
Quite clear, but Im sorry I dont agree =(

Then you are free to houserule it in your own games.


to CampaignCarl9127: I'd like to have a word with that design team xD

to Brain in a Jar: Oh thank you =) , but I'm not a Game Master. Pathfinder is the very first rpg I've played and 4th level is as far as I've go =( but I've read the core rulebook and the gamemaster's guide, if I ever am a GM, I might be at that ;)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Xuchilbara wrote:
to CampaignCarl9127: I'd like to have a word with that design team xD

I think all you would do is say they can't read?

Developer saying you can't Ranged Flank for Sneak Attack

This isn't a new subject. Pretty much every month someone says "Ranged Flanking = Sneak Attack" and won't take no for an answer.

If you are on these boards a 7 years or so, you will know there is no ranged sneak attack from ranged flanking because flanking isn't ranged.


James Risner wrote:
Xuchilbara wrote:
to CampaignCarl9127: I'd like to have a word with that design team xD

I think all you would do is say they can't read?

Developer saying you can't Ranged Flank for Sneak Attack

This isn't a new subject. Pretty much every month someone says "Ranged Flanking = Sneak Attack" and won't take no for an answer.

If you are on these boards a 7 years or so, you will know there is no ranged sneak attack from ranged flanking because flanking isn't ranged.

You picked the kidding part of my post :-)

The link you provided has been quite helpful though, thank you!


What's weird is that there isn't already a feat for doing this. It seems like a natural progression of the snap shot line.

Grand Lodge

Melkiador wrote:
What's weird is that there isn't already a feat for doing this. It seems like a natural progression of the snap shot line.

Probably because the PCs who could benefit from it are the ones most likely to be Feat-starved.

+2 to hit from Flanking?
Anyone can benefit from it, but Weapon Focus/Greater Weapon Focus are more consistent (100% of the time, instead of not working against certain foes, and requiring potentially dangerous placement), and fairly easy to get for those who want/need that extra +2 to hit.

Sneak attack from flanking?
Rogue, Slayer, a few PrCs or such. You have to have sneak or precision damage to benefit form this, and those builds are usually not going to have three extra feats to spare to get flank while out in the open within reach, or near reach, to an enemy.
If they have the feats, they are probably better served with feats that make it easier to snipe and rehide, which also gives them better defenses, and removes the need to be on the opposite side of an enemy from their allies.


It would be more fitting if they add or change the grounded principles of flanking in the core rules, though I suspect it would imply some papperwork and possible protests.


@Gisher: You wrote " but I must have missed the part stating that the content of every paragraph are logically isolated from the content of other paragraphs in the same work."
"a part of a piece of writing that usually deals with one subject, that begins on a new line, and that is made up of one or more sentences"
"a subdivision of a written composition that consists of one or more sentences, deals with one point or gives the words of one speaker, and begins on a new usually indented line"
"a short composition or note that is complete in one paragraph"

@CBDunkerson: +1

@James Risner: You wrote "We know you can't ranged flank. We have a FAQ that says so and developers that have said so."
Actually, the FAQ said "ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat." Not the same thing.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
The entire section's purpose is to explain in detail how flanking works.

It has several aspects. Positional, attack, and exceptions.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
So this portion of the rules details what happens and how to obtain flanking.

Nope. This deals with how to get an attack bonus.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
But Brain in a Jar what if Flanking doesn't mean melee attacks even though it clearly states melee attacks?

It mentions melee attacks for the attack bonus, not for the positioning. You don't even need to attack to be flanking.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
The very same paragraph that people are using to justify ranged flanking.

And the feat text still does, but was specifically FAQed to not allow it. It does not let you get the +2 bonus since it does not override the text "if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner." that comes as a requirement for the bonus. Do note that the "ranged flankers" were concerned about sneak attack, not about attack bonus. This feat opened up the possible placement for getting a ranged flank. The FAQ killed the range option for this feat only. RAW: It still leaves ranged flanking on the table if you can line everyone up correctly.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
Gang Up FAQ wrote:
The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included,

This here is important. Why would the feat need to mention ranged attacks if Flanking is normally allowed with ranged attacks?

Gang Up FAQ wrote:
and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat.
Oh there it is. The feat would need to mention ranged attacks since they are not eligible for Flanking normally.

The feat does not make mention of melee attacks either. Your statement can be applied like so:

"This here is important. Why would the feat need to mention melee attacks if Flanking is normally allowed with melee attacks?"
Basically, the comment about no mention of ranged attacks is a distraction. And it worked for most everyone.
As to Flanking referring to melee, sure it does. It also refers to positioning. Did they bother to use that? Just referring to something does not tell you how it works. Again, an example of poor writing in a FAQ.

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Ranged attacks don't benefit from Flanking using Gang Up for two reasons.

1. It's not specifically mentioned in the feat. Which would provide a specific rule to trump the general rules of Flanking.
2. Flanking refers to melee attacks normally.

Since both reasons are faulty, your conclusion based on them is faulty.

This is not a house rule, but RAW. Do I think it RAI? No.

@Xuchilbara: +1

@Brain in a Jar: You write "Flanking isn't a condition applied to an enemy." Um... "...then the opponent is flanked." Sure looks like a condition to me.

@CampinCarl9127: you write "flanking specifically refers to melee attacks". It also refers to other things. Like position. Like a test. What you see as black/white, others see in color. :-)

@James Risner: you wrote "...because flanking isn't ranged." Your opinion, and probably the opinion of most players and the developers, but not actually written in RAW.

/cevah

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cevah wrote:
Actually, the FAQ said "ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat." Not the same thing.

It doesn't phase you that the developer thought the whole question was a joke and was going to respond with a silly reply, but decided that your position might actually be serious and responded No.

You can not be considered flanking when making a Ranged attack, period.

We have a FAQ saying so.

We have a developer saying so.

If your objective is poke fun at the rules, consider it poked.

If your objective is you know they will never answer the question again and you know you can't ranged flank, but you think you can eak it out since it will never be directly answered again. Just say. We are ok with that. It's your GM's issue.

Quote:
@James Risner: you wrote "...because flanking isn't ranged." Your opinion, and probably the opinion of most players and the developers, but not actually written in RAW.

Actually it is abundantly clear in the RAW.


Cevah wrote:

@James Risner: You wrote "We know you can't ranged flank. We have a FAQ that says so and developers that have said so."

Actually, the FAQ said "ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat." Not the same thing.

Read the full FAQ and stop intentionally misdirecting the facts.

Gang Up FAQ wrote:
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.

The bold section is one sentence and details three truths.

1. Gang Up makes no mention of Ranged Attacks.
Why even mention this? You claim ranged attacks can flank normally. If that were true then this wouldn't be needed.

2. Flanking refers to melee attacks.
As in the Flanking section of the rules. Not part of it. Not just what you are cherry-picking. The whole section is in reference to melee.

3. Ranged attacks do not work with Gang Up.
Why don't they work with Gang Up?
Because Flanking refers to melee attacks and Gang Up doesn't provide specific rules to override that.

If you think that's not true.

Then please Cevah grace us all with an explanation for what that bold sentence means?


Cevah wrote:
@CampinCarl9127: you write "flanking specifically refers to melee attacks". It also refers to other things. Like position. Like a test. What you see as black/white, others see in color. :-)

If you want to be flippant, sure. I was simply addressing the question at hand, not trying to give an full description of all flanking rules. If somebody asks "does fireball do fire damage" you don't answer with "it is a 3rd level spell". Correct? Sure. Relevant? Nope.

This cannot be any clearer. I'm one that usually is pretty lenient on allowing different valid interpretations of RAW, but there is no other valid interpretation in this case. The answer is clear. You cannot gain any bonuses from flanking with a ranged attack. Period.


I heartly hope my next comment won't trigger any further outrage here...

Though I will always abide by the decision of an arbiter part (the developer in this case, or the GM in many others) my opinion about the topic at hand (and yes, I know this isnt an oppinion topic, but a quiestions and answers one) is based on the following...

-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.

Here says 'flanks', not 'getting a flanking bonus from flanking'. Then...

-If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Since the opponent in question is effectively being flanked by the rogue, it's perfectly concievably that the rogue is flanking (making it to be flanked) her target. Then...

-Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

And thats it. Again, I'm perfectly good with the decision and/or interpretation of mr. developer here. Thank you all for your time and good will =)


The main essence of my argument is ''or when the rogue flanks her target''. It doesnt even say the rogue must be benefiting from flanking or that she must attack with a melee weapon. The target is flanked because of the rogue, it's an aritmetical fact that the rogue is flanking her target (unless the rogue targets a different foe than the one she's actually flanking, of course xD).


Xuchilbara wrote:
I heartly hope my next comment won't trigger any further outrage here...

No outrage intended. Promise.

Xuchilbara wrote:
Here says 'flanks', not 'getting a flanking bonus from flanking'. Then...

Those are the same thing.

If a person wants to find out how to flank in the Core Rule-book they go to the section called "Flanking" in the combat section.

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.

It's all one concept. The first paragraph tells you the parameters of flanking. The second paragraphs clarifies the meaning of;

Flanking wrote:
threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

The issue seems to be that people are separating them for no reason.

It even enforces this in the Combat Modifiers chart.

Combat Modifiers

Attacker is Flanking Defender: Melee +2 Ranged -
Attacker is Prone: Melee -4 Ranged -

Notice that the "-" in the chart is for when it doesn't apply at all.

It even references this in the Attacker is Prone part. With;

Combat Modifiers wrote:
3 Most ranged weapons can't be used while the attacker is prone, but you can use a crossbow or shuriken while prone at no penalty.

It's a "-" unless its a crossbow or shuriken. Otherwise it's just not something that works.

Which is further supported by the Attacker is on Higher Ground, notice Melee gets a +1 and Ranged gets a +0. Why is that?

It's because when a "-" is on the chart it's not a possible scenario.


Xuchilbara wrote:
I heartly hope my next comment won't trigger any further outrage here...

No outrage here. Simply having a calm discussion. Disagreement is not the same as anger.

Xuchilbara wrote:
The main essence of my argument is ''or when the rogue flanks her target''. It doesnt even say the rogue must be benefiting from flanking or that she must attack with a melee weapon. The target is flanked because of the rogue, it's an aritmetical fact that the rogue is flanking her target (unless the rogue targets a different foe than the one she's actually flanking, of course xD).

Yes, this was brought up earlier. While we are all agreed that you cannot gain flanking bonuses with a ranged weapon, it is known that you can provide flanking with a ranged weapon (with enough feats).

I agree that the matter of being able to sneak attack with a ranged weapon while providing flanking is more ambiguous, and as of now I'm leaving it up to table variation.


Thank you for the clarification about the outrage, I was beggining to feel like a troublemaker (seriously).

''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''.

I think the first paragraph explains an specific effect of flanking (thus not nessesarily the only possible effect: many feats and class abilities imply more of such effects).
The second paragraph is the actual explanation of the parameters of flanking.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
Notice that the "-" in the chart is for when it doesn't apply at all.

What about prone slinger?

Prone Slinger (Combat)
Your sideways sling release allows you to launch bullets and stones even while prone.

Benefit: While prone, you can use a sling to make ranged attacks.

Normal: Crossbows and firearms are the only ranged weapons that can be used while prone.

The "-" seems not to be almighty.


Xuchilbara wrote:

Thank you for the clarification about the outrage, I was beggining to feel like a troublemaker (seriously).

''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''.

I think the first paragraph explains an specific effect of flanking (thus not nessesarily the only possible effect: many feats and class abilities imply more of such effects).
The second paragraph is the actual explanation of the parameters of flanking.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
Notice that the "-" in the chart is for when it doesn't apply at all.

What about prone slinger?

Prone Slinger (Combat)
Your sideways sling release allows you to launch bullets and stones even while prone.

Benefit: While prone, you can use a sling to make ranged attacks.

Normal: Crossbows and firearms are the only ranged weapons that can be used while prone.

The "-" seems not to be almighty.

Specific rules always trump general rules.


I think everyone has forgotten that rulebook to a game =/= perfect legal document: don't read into how paragraphs are structured for an answer.


@James Risner: "You can not be considered flanking when making a Ranged attack, period.
We have a FAQ saying so."
We do not have a FAQ giving a broad no ranged flanking. The Gang-up FAQ is a specific no to ranged flanking with this feat.
We are told not to apply FAQs broadly, and only to what they actually say.
Therefore, equating a narrow "no" to a broad "no" is a flawed response.

@James Risner: "Actually it is abundantly clear in the RAW."
If true, why are there a number of people who see it differently?
It is not abundantly clear.

@Brain in a Jar: "The bold section is one sentence and details three truths.
1. Gang Up makes no mention of Ranged Attacks.
2. Flanking refers to melee attacks.
3. Ranged attacks do not work with Gang Up."
1. True. It also does not mention melee attacks. This truth has NO bearing on the question.
2. True. It refers to melee. It also refers to position. It also refers to exceptions. In order to understand this, you must first understand flanking. This truth does not change anything about flanking, only makes a reference to it.
3. False. This is not supported in the text of the feat. Rather, this is the FAQ changing the rules, and only for this single feat.

@Xuchilbara: Ranged attacks can count as sneak attack at greater distances with certain tricks & items. Check 'em out.

@Brain in a Jar: "It even enforces this in the Combat Modifiers chart."
Yep. These are the modifiers for attack with the d20. Your link states: "A number of factors and conditions can influence an attack roll. Many of these situations grant a bonus or penalty on attack rolls or to a defender's Armor Class." But it leaves out Power Attack, one of the most commonly used feats. It leaves out Sneak Attack as well. Clearly, this is not a complete list of modifiers, and it does not even pretend to be a set of modifiers to damage. Using an incomplete list of attack modifiers to prove an exclusion on damage does not work.

@AwesomenessDog: "don't read into how paragraphs are structured for an answer."
Actually, we must. Clear communication requires a common set of rules governing communication. Paragraphs are one such rule. If we do not adhere to this common understanding of how language gets written, we loose all sense of what each other means. For example, if I had not left a blank line between each entry of this reply, you might have a harder time figuring out who I am talking to at each moment. With the break, it is easy to spot and thus see the tag indicating who I am replying to.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:

@AwesomenessDog: "don't read into how paragraphs are structured for an answer."

Actually, we must. Clear communication requires a common set of rules governing communication. Paragraphs are one such rule. If we do not adhere to this common understanding of how language gets written, we loose all sense of what each other means. For example, if I had not left a blank line between each entry of this reply, you might have a harder time figuring out who I am talking to at each moment. With the break, it is easy to spot and thus see the tag indicating who I am replying to.

Except Paizo does not consistently follow your "one paragraph, one rule" theory. The only strict one it seems to follow is every time you see some bolded subtitle, it means a new rule. Every time a new phenomenon of rules is explained we have a new subrule, but not a new governing body every paragraph. Also "common set of rules" I part of the "grammar cannot change" fallacy, we are an intelligent species capable of making adaptations and clarifications, all that is necessary is that all parties can understand the simple messages of one another.

51 to 100 of 297 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / archer flanking bonus All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.