archer flanking bonus


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 297 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

AwesomenessDog wrote:
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.

I would call it "one paragraph, one point". Yeah, they are not consistent. But neither are we, and yes, we can adapt. However, that always leaves us questioning "did I really understand what was said?"

AwesomenessDog wrote:
Also "common set of rules" I part of the "grammar cannot change" fallacy,...

How do I parse this?

* Also "common set of rules"[:] I [am] part of [, i.e. believe in,] "grammar cannot change" fallacy,...
* Also [a] "common set of rules" I [is] part of [the] "grammar cannot change" fallacy,...

Since you did not follow the common set of rules, I am at a loss to truly understand what you meant. I think the latter, but it could even be something I did not even think of.

/cevah


lets stick to the flanking thing, yes? =p


Cevah wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
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.

I would call it "one paragraph, one point". Yeah, they are not consistent. But neither are we, and yes, we can adapt. However, that always leaves us questioning "did I really understand what was said?"

AwesomenessDog wrote:
Also "common set of rules" I part of the "grammar cannot change" fallacy,...

How do I parse this?

* Also "common set of rules"[:] I [am] part of [, i.e. believe in,] "grammar cannot change" fallacy,...
* Also [a] "common set of rules" I [is] part of [the] "grammar cannot change" fallacy,...

Since you did not follow the common set of rules, I am at a loss to truly understand what you meant. I think the latter, but it could even be something I did not even think of.

/cevah

I would say you weren't thinking in context if you chose the former. (Btw, only one of those mistakes were intentional.)

Back on topic, if I have a bow and snapshot and am across from you, with Xuchilabra wielding anything that attacks with melee (including unarmed) on the opposite side, and Xuchilabra and I are fighting you, I get no bonus. I am flanking by the spacing analysis of flanking, and Xuchilabra technically gets the +2 even if she does not threaten (say with unarmed) although she would still provoke. Aside from those rather unusual technicalities, since flanking is not defined to only include melee attacks (it only says that only melee attacks get the +2), Sneak attack can be made this way with ranged weapons just with no bonus. While all true by RAW, all of this is a rather impractical use of ranged attacks; consider giving your front line enlarge person and have the ranged rogue hide behind them with stealth if you want free sneaks. Flank rules could be rewritten to be better or at least this could be FAQed but you can always just go with rule number 0 "GM>RAW".


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.
Brain in a Jar wrote:

: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."
Cevah wrote:
1. True. It also does not mention melee attacks. This truth has NO bearing on the question.

Why would a feat about flanking need to mention melee?

Melee is the default method in the combat section for flanking. The only part it needs to reference is the section its changing. Which it does.

Gang Up wrote:
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.
Cevah wrote:
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.

This section of the sentence:

"and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks"

Is called a "Non-essential appositive". You'll note it's encased by a set of commas in the sentence.

"By "non-essential" appositive we mean an appositive that is not completely necessary. The sentence will be understood without it.

In such cases, use commas before and after the appositive."

Which would leave:

"The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat."

Which is true. That is a perfectly understandable sentence.

So why would Gang Up be required to make an exception for ranged attacks?

If what you claim is true Cevah, that flanking is only based on position, then why does Gang Up need an exception to allow ranged attacks?

Oh look another example of how a "non-essential appositive" functions. I don't need to mention the bold section, just above, for the sentence to be understood.

It needs the exception since the general rules for Flanking, don't allow ranged attacks to benefit.

Cevah wrote:
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.

It doesn't need to be supported in the feat. The feat only changes and deals with the position portion of flanking. It does not affect the "When making a melee attack" portion of the Flanking Rules.

You need a melee attack, the correct positioning, and an ally that can threaten in order to flank.

Not some of them. All of them.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
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.
Brain in a Jar wrote:

: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."
Cevah wrote:
1. True. It also does not mention melee attacks. This truth has NO bearing on the question.

Why would a feat about flanking need to mention melee?

Melee is the default method in the combat section for flanking. The only part it needs to reference is the section its changing. Which it does.

It does not need to mention melee. Nor does it need to mention ranged.

Given the section has 5 paragraphs, and only 1 mentions melee, I don't see how it can be the "default". Did something call it out as such? Did I miss something? The default method in combat is combat by any means. You want +2 on the d20, then you must also be melee.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
Gang Up wrote:
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.
Cevah wrote:
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.

This section of the sentence:

"and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks"

Is called a "Non-essential appositive". You'll note it's encased by a set of commas in the sentence.

"By "non-essential" appositive we mean an appositive that is not completely necessary. The sentence will be understood without it.

In such cases, use commas before and after the appositive."

Which would leave:

"The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat."

Which is true. That is a perfectly understandable sentence.

So why would Gang Up be required to make an exception for ranged attacks?

It is not required to make an exception.

What it did, pre-FAQ, was to modify the positioning requirements for flanking. Nothing, before or after, modified the definition of flanking as a position in the old way.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
If what you claim is true Cevah, that flanking is only based on position, then why does Gang Up need an exception to allow ranged attacks?

It does not, nor have I said so. It's very definition changed the requirements for flanking. Like many other feats, this let specific override general. What the FAQ did was close an unintended option. Because the writers thought ranged flanking was not possible normally, they did NOT do anything about it and instead assumed it with their referencing the flanking rules.

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Oh look another example of how a "non-essential appositive" functions. I don't need to mention the bold section, just above, for the sentence to be understood.

It needs the exception since the general rules for Flanking, don't allow ranged attacks to benefit.

Only if you think Flanking == Flanking Bonus.

If they are different, as I have been saying, then RAW allows ranged flanking. No Gang-Up feat needed.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
Cevah wrote:
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.

It doesn't need to be supported in the feat. The feat only changes and deals with the position portion of flanking. It does not affect the "When making a melee attack" portion of the Flanking Rules.

You need a melee attack, the correct positioning, and an ally that can threaten in order to flank.

Not some of them. All of them.

In order to get the +2 bonus.

Sneak attack does not require the bonus. It just needs the position portion of flanking to work.

/cevah


To Brain in a jar: Like I said, The developer's interpretation and decision is very clear, I'm ok with it and I'm not arguing against it. My last posts were only opinions about the ambiguity of the rulebook =)


Cevah wrote:
It is not required to make an exception.

Yes it does that's how the rules work.

Gang Up doesn't mention ranged attacks, because of that along with the fact that Flanking requires a melee attack to function, means that you can't use ranged attacks with Gang Up. Not because the FAQ says so, but because the rules don't allow ranged weapons to gain Flanking in the first place.

Cevah wrote:
What it did, pre-FAQ, was to modify the positioning requirements for flanking. Nothing, before or after, modified the definition of flanking as a position in the old way.

The FAQ did nothing to the positioning required. It only clarified that ranged weapons don't work with Gang Up because the normal Flanking rules don't work with ranged weapons.

Cevah wrote:
It's very definition changed the requirements for flanking.

Only one section of Flanking. Gang Up only altered the position needed nothing else. It didn't change the "When making a melee attack" portion of Flanking.

Cevah wrote:
What the FAQ did was close an unintended option. Because the writers thought ranged flanking was not possible normally, they did NOT do anything about it and instead assumed it with their referencing the flanking rules.

The FAQ closed nothing. It just says you can't use ranged weapons with Gang Up because Flanking is only melee normally.

So now you know better than the writer's and the Pathfinder Design Team?

Cevah wrote:

Only if you think Flanking == Flanking Bonus.

If they are different, as I have been saying, then RAW allows ranged flanking. No Gang-Up feat needed.

If RAW allowed ranged flanking there would be no need for the FAQ to begin with.

Once again do you think you know better than the PDT?

Cevah wrote:
Sneak attack does not require the bonus. It just needs the position portion of flanking to work.

This is wrong and only shows you complete disregard for the rules.

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.

So this is the only portion that matters right Cevah?

"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"

Am i understanding that correctly. I should ignore the other parts of Flanking and only use this to determine if I'm Flanking or not.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Xuchilbara wrote:

aritmetical fact that the rogue is flanking her target

The second paragraph is the actual explanation of the parameters of flanking

opinions about the ambiguity of the rulebook =)

In your view. In the developers view, flanking is only a status of a given attack and that attack must be a MeLee attack.

The second is to shed more light on exactly how you tell if you are flanking from the first sentence.

Whether or not it is ambiguous, it is unlikely to be changed now. Especially since the number of people confused is looking muted to a handful and we have published FAQ to clarify you can't flank with ranged attacks.


James Risner wrote:
Xuchilbara wrote:

aritmetical fact that the rogue is flanking her target

The second paragraph is the actual explanation of the parameters of flanking

opinions about the ambiguity of the rulebook =)

In your view. In the developers view, flanking is only a status of a given attack and that attack must be a MeLee attack.

The second is to shed more light on exactly how you tell if you are flanking from the first sentence.

Whether or not it is ambiguous, it is unlikely to be changed now. Especially since the number of people confused is looking muted to a handful and we have published FAQ to clarify you can't flank with ranged attacks.

Then they can change the rules or errata it. Nothing said about gang up directly applies to anything outside of gang up.


Also, I see no FAQ answer on gang up, could someone link me?


AwesomenessDog wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Xuchilbara wrote:

aritmetical fact that the rogue is flanking her target

The second paragraph is the actual explanation of the parameters of flanking

opinions about the ambiguity of the rulebook =)

In your view. In the developers view, flanking is only a status of a given attack and that attack must be a MeLee attack.

The second is to shed more light on exactly how you tell if you are flanking from the first sentence.

Whether or not it is ambiguous, it is unlikely to be changed now. Especially since the number of people confused is looking muted to a handful and we have published FAQ to clarify you can't flank with ranged attacks.

Then they can change the rules or errata it. Nothing said about gang up directly applies to anything outside of gang up.

Here is the link Gang Up FAQ

The FAQ doesn't errata or change any rules dealing with Gang Up.

It only clarifies why ranged attacks don't with it.

Mainly because Flanking is done when making a melee attack.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Xuchilbara wrote:

aritmetical fact that the rogue is flanking her target

The second paragraph is the actual explanation of the parameters of flanking

opinions about the ambiguity of the rulebook =)

In your view. In the developers view, flanking is only a status of a given attack and that attack must be a MeLee attack.

The second is to shed more light on exactly how you tell if you are flanking from the first sentence.

Whether or not it is ambiguous, it is unlikely to be changed now. Especially since the number of people confused is looking muted to a handful and we have published FAQ to clarify you can't flank with ranged attacks.

Then they can change the rules or errata it. Nothing said about gang up directly applies to anything outside of gang up.

Here is the link Gang Up FAQ

The FAQ doesn't errata or change any rules dealing with Gang Up.

It only clarifies why ranged attacks don't with it.

Mainly because Flanking is done when making a melee attack.

Thanks for the link, but as RAW is a supplement to rules, not rules themselves. The mention to flanking referring that "flanking specifically refers to melee attacks" is an error (of what kind is up to debate) because the rule does not specifically say that anything with flanking that locks it into melee attacks only (besides the +2 when attacking). So now we know that you can't stand behind to melee ally's and receive flanking sneak attacks with a ranged weapons.

As well, I warn you of the dangers of hyperspecificly reading into his words: they not only don't mention something validly saying flanking does not apply for ranged attacks but the specific wording means only the Attack (melee) option ever qualifies for flanking.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
Cevah wrote:
It is not required to make an exception.
Yes it does that's how the rules work.

It only needs an exception when it is the one changing the rules. It was not changing the possibility of ranged flanking, so no exception was needed.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
Gang Up doesn't mention ranged attacks, because of that along with the fact that Flanking requires a melee attack to function, means that you can't use ranged attacks with Gang Up. Not because the FAQ says so, but because the rules don't allow ranged weapons to gain Flanking in the first place.

Many things do not mention melee. Does that mean they are implied to be melee because of some default? No.

What it does not say has no bearing on what it does say. Why did the developers bother to mention something it did not say? There was no point to saying it does not say something.

You think flanking is melee only. The developers probably think so as well. Fine. It is NOT what they actually wrote. Thus RAW does not agree with RAI. RAI: I am fine with melee limited flanking. My point in all this is that RAW does not actually support that.

The FAQ actually did change the rules, but only with respect to the Gang-Up feat.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
Cevah wrote:
What it did, pre-FAQ, was to modify the positioning requirements for flanking. Nothing, before or after, modified the definition of flanking as a position in the old way.
The FAQ did nothing to the positioning required. It only clarified that ranged weapons don't work with Gang Up because the normal Flanking rules don't work with ranged weapons.

Since the definition of flanking, in my understanding, allows ranged flanking, the FAQ did change something. It specifically prohibited the Gang-Up feat from opening up flanking possibilities.

In a way, the FAQ could even support be said to support ranged flanking, since it is making Gang-Up an exception to ranged flanking.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
Cevah wrote:
It's very definition changed the requirements for flanking.
Only one section of Flanking. Gang Up only altered the position needed nothing else. It didn't change the "When making a melee attack" portion of Flanking.

Correct. However, that part of flanking is not about qualifying for sneak attack, but about getting an attack bonus on melee attacks.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
Cevah wrote:
What the FAQ did was close an unintended option. Because the writers thought ranged flanking was not possible normally, they did NOT do anything about it and instead assumed it with their referencing the flanking rules.

The FAQ closed nothing. It just says you can't use ranged weapons with Gang Up because Flanking is only melee normally.

So now you know better than the writer's and the Pathfinder Design Team?

Possibly. For this particular issue. I have definitely looked at the wording for flanking at least as much as them, considering how busy they are looking at everything. That I see it differently may be due to my being more literally oriented, or because I am just different. It does not matter. I see it differently.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
Cevah wrote:

Only if you think Flanking == Flanking Bonus.

If they are different, as I have been saying, then RAW allows ranged flanking. No Gang-Up feat needed.

If RAW allowed ranged flanking there would be no need for the FAQ to begin with.

Once again do you think you know better than the PDT?

There was argument about how it worked. That is enough reason for a FAQ. The arguments predate any of my comments.

That the PDT chose to word the FAQ in a way that assumed melee only, even after the discussion pointed out how and why ranged flanking worked, was their own poor choice.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
Cevah wrote:
Sneak attack does not require the bonus. It just needs the position portion of flanking to work.
This is wrong and only shows you complete disregard for the rules.

I have been posting rule quotes and explaining myself with them all along. Saying I am completely disregarding the rules, however, after seeing such postings many times, just reflects badly on you.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
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.
So this is the only portion that matters right Cevah?

Correct. For sneak attack via flanking.

Brain in a Jar 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"

Am i understanding that correctly. I should ignore the other parts of Flanking and only use this to determine if I'm Flanking or not.

Correct.

/cevah


James Risner wrote:
In your view. In the developers view, flanking is only a status of a given attack and that attack must be a MeLee attack

Back to Back requires you to be Flanked:

Back to Back (Teamwork)
Your ally’s eyes are your own, and yours are his.

Prerequisite: Perception 3 ranks.

Benefit: While you are flanked and adjacent to an ally with this feat, you receive a +2 circumstance bonus to AC against attacks from opponents flanking you.

It's intriguing for me that this feat actualy says 'opponents flanking you' and nothing about flanking attacks (Tentatively, Back to Back would not protect you from Gang Up xD).

James Risner wrote:
Whether or not it is ambiguous, it is unlikely to be changed now.

I agree.

James Risner wrote:
Especially since the number of people confused is looking muted to a handful and we have published FAQ to clarify you can't flank with ranged attacks.

I dont agree.

P.D. Posts are getting quite long, are they not? xD


Guys I think this is just going in circles. This is just a Schoedinger's Cat's situation where the core rulebook can be considered to both allow and forbid sneak attack damage on flanking ranged attacks. Only an arbiter part should take the final decision for eaach campaign and even then, that decision could be considered both an official and homegrown rule at the same time (wich I find ammusing xD).

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

AwesomenessDog wrote:
Then they can change the rules or errata it.

Change it because less than 8 people are confused by it? No, they shouldn't need to change a rule just because a fraction of a percent are confused by it. Plus should they do so, there is a risk even more people will be confused by the new wording.

Xuchilbara wrote:
the core rulebook can be considered to both allow and forbid sneak attack damage on flanking ranged attacks.

There are no words I can say to convince the 8 or so people who believe in Ranged Sneak Attacking via flanking.

There are also no words those people can say to convince the rest of the players and GM it works as they say.

Developers first gut reactions to this topic is to post silly responses, presumably because they find the whole concept silly. When they do post direct responses that you can't gain Sneak Attack from a ranged attack, the response is "well change the rules." If they think the rules are so clear that the question deserves a silly response, they won't be changing the rules.


Hush no, please dont change the rulebook! Speaking by me only, I'm not confused about what the designer implied in the link you provided before, but it's lovely the way the rulebook is with all its ambiguities, and surely they would change it to be directly like ''There's no way in universe you could deal sneak attack damage when flanking with a ranged weapon'' or something.

I'm ok with the developers saying that you can't sneak attack the way I and many others have suggested and, as I have mentioned before, I will always abide by that (unless my GM says otherwise), but in case of ambiguities in an official paper, the non-redactory part is always the benefited part and ambiguities themselves are enough benefit for me as I have always found them enchanting =) .


In other words, I'm happy unless a developer directs me to a part in the rulebook where this topic could be cleared away and, in that case, I would still be happy, but a little bit dissapointed (even if he/she proves we [pro sneak attack folk] were right).


James Risner wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
Then they can change the rules or errata it.

Change it because less than 8 people are confused by it? No, they shouldn't need to change a rule just because a fraction of a percent are confused by it. Plus should they do so, there is a risk even more people will be confused by the new wording.

Xuchilbara wrote:
the core rulebook can be considered to both allow and forbid sneak attack damage on flanking ranged attacks.

There are no words I can say to convince the 8 or so people who believe in Ranged Sneak Attacking via flanking.

There are also no words those people can say to convince the rest of the players and GM it works as they say.

Developers first gut reactions to this topic is to post silly responses, presumably because they find the whole concept silly. When they do post direct responses that you can't gain Sneak Attack from a ranged attack, the response is "well change the rules." If they think the rules are so clear that the question deserves a silly response, they won't be changing the rules.

"Change it because less than 8 people are confused by it? No, they shouldn't need to change a rule just because a fraction of a percent are confused by it."

You say that as if there aren't entire gaming groups that allow ranged flanking just for being on the opposite side of the enemy and nothing requires you to be threatening in the first place. RAI would be that if the person can't defend on both sides (which is how flanking is explained for melee) then what they use and from where makes no difference. The RAW is that nothing restricts anything but the +2 to melee in flanking. You're the only person here who does not agree with that even though its right there in black and white. Numbers is also irrelevant to right and wrong.

It would be much easier for everyone if they added a "you can ranged flank" or "you can't ranged flank" because now instead of bickering about, we can say "screw that, that's stupid, Houserule."

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

AwesomenessDog wrote:
You're the only person here who does not agree with that even though its right there in black and white. Numbers is also irrelevant to right and wrong.

I say you can't ranged flank.

An FAQ says you can't ranged flank.

The majority of posters in this thread say you can't ranged flank.

A developer thought the ranged flanking was a joke, but on the off chance it was a real question responded that you can't ranged flank.

Pretty much everyone on the planet says you can't ranged flank.

Because everyone bu 8 people in this thread says you can't ranged flank, they will never consider making a FAQ post.

At least until we are killing each other in the streets over the issue.


James Risner wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
You're the only person here who does not agree with that even though its right there in black and white. Numbers is also irrelevant to right and wrong.

I say you can't ranged flank.

An FAQ says you can't ranged flank.

The majority of posters in this thread say you can't ranged flank.

A developer thought the ranged flanking was a joke, but on the off chance it was a real question responded that you can't ranged flank.

Pretty much everyone on the planet says you can't ranged flank.

Because everyone bu 8 people in this thread says you can't ranged flank, they will never consider making a FAQ post.

At least until we are killing each other in the streets over the issue.

Your the only one still arguing it so you have no consensus supporting you, those others are gone. The FAQ does not saying "ranged flanking doesn't exist", it says "ranged flanking does not exist in these circumstances". And again, numbers mean nothing for who is correct.


James Risner wrote:
At least until we are killing each other in the streets over the issue.

I bet I could sneak attack you with my water gun while awesomeness dog and I flank you! xD (kidding)


Xuchilbara wrote:
James Risner wrote:
At least until we are killing each other in the streets over the issue.
I bet I could sneak attack you with my water gun while awesomeness dog and I flank you! xD (kidding)

Non lethal damage, of course.


Everyone is pointing to that FAQ as the reason why ranged flanking is not allowed at all ever... when in reality the FAQ had to be given because if it was not then ranged flanking would have been possible using Gang Up.

Gang Up, as written, removes the normal flanking rules and says that so long as 2 allies are threatening, you get to count as flanking. As written, there were no other restrictions on position, melee only, or ranged attacks being excluded.

The fact that they had to re-insert the restriction to be melee-only, actually changed how the feat worked.

Snap Shot lets you threaten with a bow out to 5 ft. Now you provide flanking to allies in melee, but gain none yourself, because it doesn't change any other requirements for flanking like Gang Up did.

They are not equal feats, at all.

As well, a whip is a melee weapon, with a 15 ft range.

Per the Rules, with the Whip Mastery Feats, I fully expect to provide and receive flanking benefits when I use it from opposite sides of an enemy, 10ft away.

Per the rules, even without the Whip mastery feats, I fully expect to receive (but not provide) flanking benefits when attacking from 10-15ft away while an ally is opposite the enemy from me.

It is a melee attack, and I draw a line from me to the ally and it passes through opposite sides of an enemy's square. But it is made at range.

Sneak Attacking whip wielding rogue FTW.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

AwesomenessDog wrote:
Your the only one still arguing it so you have no consensus supporting you

Everyone else stopped talking on this thread because this thread is kinda out there.

We have official answers supporting the no ranged flanking. The fact we still have people (several) disagreeing with official answers is kinda hard to believe.


James Risner wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
Your the only one still arguing it so you have no consensus supporting you

Everyone else stopped talking on this thread because this thread is kinda out there.

We have official answers supporting the no ranged flanking. The fact we still have people (several) disagreeing with official answers is kinda hard to believe.

Actually, we still have people disagreeing about what the official answers are actually saying.

The FAQ can be argued to mean one of the following:
a)Gang Up merely adjusts the the positioning requirements, but does not remove the explicit prohibition on getting flanking bonuses with a ranged weapon, so you can't benefit from this feat with a bow under normal circumstances (in normal circumstances, bows don't threaten).
b)No ranged flanking, period.

Under the first one, there is a very strong case for allowing snap shot to allow others to flank, since arguing against it requires extending limitations in one part of the flanking rules text to others(or at least, that's what I have been taking away from the posts so far), which is questionable, to say the least.

Under the second, no ranged flanking, period, unless an ability specifically permits it(shockingly enough).

If you try to minimize the rules changes of the FAQ on the ruleset(when otherwise reasonable), then the first is the better option, because it doesn't contradict the flanking rules which don't limit the threatening requirement to be with a melee weapon. On that basis, you are wrong and the others are right. You can come at it from a different basis, like "this is what I think Paizo intends", or "common sense says that the melee limitation applies to everything", but that doesn't make the people arguing with you "wrong" or the fact that they are arguing with you "hard to believe". It just means that the rules are ambiguous (if your basis for your stance can be considered valid, which I don't really care to get into), and the flanking rules will be subject to table variation due to the rules ambiguity.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Snowblind wrote:
You can come at it from a different basis, like "this is what I think Paizo intends"

We don't have that. We have a developer making a comment that he planned on answering it with a joke answer but decided to answer it with a serious answer. You can't ranged flank.

If he felt there might be some ambiguity, he wouldn't have said he almost make a silly response. He would have not answered or answered straight away with the "no ranged flank" answer.

What we have is some people who simply can't accept the truth no matter how many way it is told. I'm sure if we got a direct "You can't ranged flank" FAQ that only covered ranged flanking, we would have an uproar of "that's not RAW" in response.


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"

So according to the people claiming ranged flanking is possible, all that matters from the Flanking section is the above section.

Can i flank in this situation then?

A X X X X X T X X X X X B

A and B are allied Rogues using ranged weapons.
The X represents a 5 foot square and T represents an enemy.

Are A and B Flanking?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Can i flank in this situation then?

A X X X X X T X X X X X B

Are A and B Flanking?

Brilliant. I wish I had thought of this scenario.

They can't say no, as in their world view flanking isn't melee only and it doesn't mention threatening.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Brain in a Jar wrote:
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"

So according to the people claiming ranged flanking is possible, all that matters from the Flanking section is the above section.

Can i flank in this situation then?

A X X X X X T X X X X X B

A and B are allied Rogues using ranged weapons.
The X represents a 5 foot square and T represents an enemy.

Are A and B Flanking?

This is what I was pointing out back here when I said, "Note that taking the two sentences as separate would also mean that you don't need to threaten the target to flank it."

A & B don't even have to be using ranged weapons. Per the 'separate sentences' interpretation they'd both be flanking T even if they were using swords... or unarmed.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
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"

So according to the people claiming ranged flanking is possible, all that matters from the Flanking section is the above section.

Can i flank in this situation then?

A X X X X X T X X X X X B

A and B are allied Rogues using ranged weapons.
The X represents a 5 foot square and T represents an enemy.

Are A and B Flanking?

This is what I was pointing out back here when I said, "Note that taking the two sentences as separate would also mean that you don't need to threaten the target to flank it."

A & B don't even have to be using ranged weapons. Per the 'separate sentences' interpretation they'd both be flanking T even if they were using swords... or unarmed.

So you think that this is how flanking works?

Now lets add to the equation. So same example as i detailed above but A and B each have Sniper Googles and are using +1 Distance Longbows.

So are Rogues have a max range increment of 2,200 feet.

A X T X B

A & B= Allied Rogues with +1 Distance Longbows and Sniper Goggles.
X= 2,195 feet
T= An enemy

Are A and B flanking?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Brain in a Jar wrote:
So you think that this is how flanking works?

No. I think it's how that 'RAW interpretation' plays out.

It seems clear to me that RAI only melee threats get flanking.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
So you think that this is how flanking works?

No. I think it's how that 'RAW interpretation' plays out.

It seems clear to me that RAI only melee threats get flanking.

It only works RAW if you ignore an entire section of the Flanking rules

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.

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.

All of that information is relevant to Flanking. All of it not some of it.

Do you people ignore other sections of the rules the same way?

Lets use Trip as an example.

Trip wrote:

Trip

You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.

Oh look two paragraphs are included i guess i can just ignore the first one.

Trip wrote:
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.

My level 11 Fighter has three attacks when i use a Full-Attack.

So when i Full-Attack i should just declare "trip" for each of them and now i can target my opponents CMD instead of AC.

So now i can deal my damage with my Greatsword and knock people prone for free! This kind of logic is so good.

[Edit: The trip example is being used in mockery. I in no way actually think this is how trip works.]

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Brain in a Jar wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
It seems clear to me that RAI only melee threats get flanking.
Do you people ignore other sections of the rules the same way?

If you won't stop arguing with me I may need to stop agreeing with you.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
It seems clear to me that RAI only melee threats get flanking.
Do you people ignore other sections of the rules the same way?
If you won't stop arguing with me I may need to stop agreeing with you.

Sorry. I was confused by this.

CBDunkerson wrote:
I think it's how that 'RAW interpretation' plays out.

I see what you meant now. You just meant the "RAW interpretation" from the perspective of the incorrect posters.

Either way the "you people" portion of my post was directed towards anyone that thinks ranged flanking works RAW.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

CBDunkerson wrote:
No. I think it's how that 'RAW interpretation' plays out.

Using the "I have an outcome I want to arrive" selective interpretation of RAW? Yes it can play out that way.

Using the proper way to interpret the words, joining the two paragraphs together like the developers do, you get "no ranged flanking" interpretation of RAW.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
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"

So according to the people claiming ranged flanking is possible, all that matters from the Flanking section is the above section.

Can i flank in this situation then?

A X X X X X T X X X X X B

A and B are allied Rogues using ranged weapons.
The X represents a 5 foot square and T represents an enemy.

Are A and B Flanking?

This is what I was pointing out back here when I said, "Note that taking the two sentences as separate would also mean that you don't need to threaten the target to flank it."

A & B don't even have to be using ranged weapons. Per the 'separate sentences' interpretation they'd both be flanking T even if they were using swords... or unarmed.

So you think that this is how flanking works?

Now lets add to the equation. So same example as i detailed above but A and B each have Sniper Googles and are using +1 Distance Longbows.

So are Rogues have a max range increment of 2,200 feet.

A X T X B

A & B= Allied Rogues with +1 Distance Longbows and Sniper Goggles.
X= 2,195 feet
T= An enemy

Are A and B flanking?

No, that's nt what was being arguing:

A_________XB
A is flanking with B because they are in a straight line on opposite sides of X, the wording only requires for A to flank that "a straight line between centers crossing opposite sides of the target", "the other person has to be threatening the defender ("Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus"). To gain a +2 bonus, you must be using melee.

Personally, I would rule that (A_________X________B) because logic dictates you couldn't defend two sides at once; but that's not what I am arguing the rules say. You are the only one adding stipulations that aren't there: you're the one with the house rule.


AwesomenessDog wrote:

No, that's nt what was being arguing:

A_________XB
A is flanking with B because they are in a straight line on opposite sides of X, the wording only requires for A to flank that "a straight line between centers crossing opposite sides of the target", "the other person has to be threatening the defender ("Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus"). To gain a +2 bonus, you must be using melee.

Personally, I would rule that (A_________X________B) because logic dictates you couldn't defend two sides at once; but that's not what I am arguing the rules say. You are the only one adding stipulations that aren't there: you're the one with the house rule.

Yes it was if you pay attention.

1.

Cevah wrote:
Sneak attack does not require the bonus. It just needs the position portion of flanking to work.
2.
Brain in a Jar 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"

Am i understanding that correctly. I should ignore the other parts of Flanking and only use this to determine if I'm Flanking or not.

Cevah wrote:
Correct.
3.
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.
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.

Cevah wrote:

I bolded the definition. There is an explicit test. You have to somehow come up with a rule that changes the bolded text to deny the sneak attack.

The first paragraph is about getting an attack bonus, and the conditions needed to get it.

4.
Xuchilbara 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''. '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.
5.
Xuchilbara 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.

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.

6.
Xuchilbara 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''.

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.

7.
Cevah wrote:
Sneak attack does not require the bonus. It just needs the position portion of flanking to work.
8.
AwesomenessDog wrote:
The RAW is that nothing restricts anything but the +2 to melee in flanking. You're the only person here who does not agree with that even though its right there in black and white.

Each person i quoted has the same argument. Only the positional portion of the Flanking section matters for ranged flanking.

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

Over and over again people just focusing on this portion of Flanking.

If this is all that matters than my example also holds true.

A X X X X T X X X X B

A & B are Rogues with ranged weapons.
X = 5 foot square
T = Opponent

If i follow the above logic and only use the positional portion and ignore the first paragraph in Flanking. This is what happens.

No need for Snapshot or Gang Up. Because using the above posters flawed logic would dictate that ranged flanking is okay at any distance.

The positional portion of flanking makes no mention of threatening, melee, or any other restriction besides opposite sides and drawing a line.

You can't have it both ways. If you and the others want to cherry-pick words in the Flanking section to suit your argument, then you also have to live with the fact that two rogue's on opposite sides from 5 feet away on each side to 2,195 feet on each side can flank and will have sneak attack.

This right here is why the notion of ranged flanking and ignoring the first paragraph is a joke. If you only use the second paragraph to decide flanking it makes a mess of the rules.

The entire argument for ranged flanking is a joke.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

As expected, I figured there would be back peddling.

There is no reasonable way to reject:

Quote:
A_________X________B

from flanking if you allow non-melee flanking.


Oh, I have'nt mentioned this before because I thought we all gave it for grounded. It's just below the picture of flanking in d20pfrsd.com (My actual source of information):

#1: The fighter and the cleric are flanking the ogre because they can draw a line to each other that passes through opposite sides of the ogre. Both the fighter and the cleric receive a +2 bonus on attack rolls made against the ogre.

#2: The rogue is not flanking the ogre because she cannot draw a line to the fighter or the cleric that passes through opposite sides of the ogre. The rogue cannot draw a line to the sorcerer because the sorcerer is not adjacent to the ogre and does not threaten it.

#3: The goblin and the ogre flank the sorcerer, as they can draw a line between them that passes through opposite sides of the sorcerer's square. If the ogre didn't have reach to the sorcerer, though, he and the goblin would not be flanking her.

In the picture, one can see two characters 'flanking' the ogre the way you are suggesting, but here says you must be threatening to flank.

P.D. I had a phyisical Core Rulebook but I had to return it because it was'nt mine =(


CRB PRD FLANKING IN TOTAL*:
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.


*Minus the diagram, text copied in full, bolding mine.

Note, the only place it specifies melee is on RECEIVING the bonus. In other places, it only requires threatening. PER THE CRB, you had no option to threaten with anything other than melee. The Whip Mastery feats were needed because a whip doesn't threaten normally. The Snap Shot line added flanking threats from ranged weapons.

To grant Flanking has two requirements. A line through opposite sides of the enemy from both attackers. You must threaten the enemy (via threatened squares).

To Receive Flanking benefits has three requirements. A line through opposite sides of the enemy from both attackers. The enemy must be threatened by the ally on the opposite side. You must be making a melee attack.

To say that flanking is only allowed to be melee as a blanket statement of the rules text is just wrong. That may have been the design intent, it may have been the design understanding, but it was not what was written in print.

The need for the FAQ on Gang-Up, was because it changed the requirements for RECEIVING the benefits to only need two people threatening in any position. It didn't have the melee only line like the actual flanking rules attached. In the absence of that line, getting flanking benefits from range was possible.

Snap shot doesn't change any requirements for receiving flanking benefits. It allows you to grant benefits with a ranged weapon, since ranged weapons do not normally threaten.


Xuchilbara wrote:
(My actual source of information)

I mean current. In my native language current and actual are the same thing. Sorry =)


Xuchilbara wrote:

Oh, I have'nt mentioned this before because I thought we all gave it for grounded. It's just below the picture of flanking in d20pfrsd.com (My actual source of information):

#1: The fighter and the cleric are flanking the ogre because they can draw a line to each other that passes through opposite sides of the ogre. Both the fighter and the cleric receive a +2 bonus on attack rolls made against the ogre.

#2: The rogue is not flanking the ogre because she cannot draw a line to the fighter or the cleric that passes through opposite sides of the ogre. The rogue cannot draw a line to the sorcerer because the sorcerer is not adjacent to the ogre and does not threaten it.

#3: The goblin and the ogre flank the sorcerer, as they can draw a line between them that passes through opposite sides of the sorcerer's square. If the ogre didn't have reach to the sorcerer, though, he and the goblin would not be flanking her.

In the picture, one can see two characters 'flanking' the ogre the way you are suggesting, but here says you must be threatening to flank.

P.D. I had a phyisical Core Rulebook but I had to return it because it was'nt mine =(

Yes. Because the example uses all of the Flanking section.

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.

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.

You'll notice the threatened part is in the first paragraph. The same part all of you have been neglecting.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

TGMaxMaxer wrote:
To say that flanking is only allowed to be melee as a blanket statement of the rules text is just wrong. That may have been the design intent, it may have been the design understanding, but it was not what was written in print.

You can't show a written in print line that says that. You can't, period.

Because anything you say says that also says nothing about threatening and any line that talks about threatening is limited to melee.


@ James... Actually, neither of the 2 places mentioning threatening require melee. The first sentence says that you -get- a bonus when making a melee attack if you have a threatening ally on the other side of the enemy. It has no instructions on if the ally has to be in melee, only that he threaten. The 2nd line after the Exception bullet once again only mentions giving a bonus by threatening, and no mention of melee limit at all.

Threatening is require by one half of the flanking pair, a melee attack is required by the other. USUALLY that means that you will both be in melee, and both have both reqs met. But there are corner cases where this is not the case. Gang Up was one. Snap Shot was another.

I quoted the entire flanking entry. The only place Melee is mentioned is the part about qualifying for a flanking bonus. Ergo, if a feat (such as Gang Up pre-FAQ) gives you an alternative qualifier for how to achieve a flank, then it only has a melee restriction if it says so.

In no other place does it mention melee. And it only mentions threatening in terms of granting the bonus throughout the entire flanking section, not for receiving it.

So, if I have no other weapons out and make an unarmed strike against an enemy without possessing the IUS feat, and I have an active ally on the opposite side of the same enemy with a weapon out, do I get the flanking bonus? Yes. I do. If I have a whip and am standing 10 feet away on the opposite side of an enemy from an active ally, do I get a flanking bonus with the whip? Yes I do.

Does the ally get a flanking bonus? No. Not unless someone besides me is providing it. Unless I happen to have the Whip mastery feats for the 2nd scenario.

Gang Up doesn't give ranged flanking bonuses because they added that limitation in the FAQ. Snap Shot doesn't give ranged flanking bonuses because it doesn't change the flanking reqs, only the threatening option.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

TGMaxMaxer wrote:

1st = no instructions on if the ally has to be in melee, only that he threaten

2nd no mention of melee limit at all.

The two sentences are linked. The second is a longer form explanation of the "opposite sides" part of the first.

They had to separate it into two sentences or risk the sentence be a run on sentence.

Flanking is melee only and only relevant when making a melee attack. We have a FAQ asserting as much directly and explicitly. We also have a developer comment that they almost made a silly/joke reply, but figured out the question was serious and as a result gave a serious reply that you can't ranged flank.


Alright everybody, as we approach the 150 posts mark I think it's time to step away and agree to disagree.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
You'll notice the threatened part is in the first paragraph. The same part all of you have been neglecting.

The reason why I jumped into this thread was that one in the first place: You need a melee weapon to get a flanking bonus, but you only need to be threatening to flank; the same way you only need a 12+ dexterity score to get a dexterity bonus to AC, but you don't need an actual dexterity bonus to AC to avoid being sneak attacked, you just need to not be surprised or feinted.


Who's going to be #150???... D=

101 to 150 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.