I, personally, wouldn't mind an addition to the rules allowing flanking at range for archer rogue-types. However, I'm also in the camp of the rules currently not allowing it per RAW.
some form of official rules change mush be present.How about an official answer, without an accompanying rules change?
I think that's the most likely possibility. The rules as they are stated today however, do not technically or semantically restrain the action of 'sneakattackwhileflankingwithrangedweapon' to be valid or legal.
I would'nt suggest a change to the rules themselves, but a change to how they are stated, and only if they (the developers) truly meant that flank and flanking bonus are the same thing* and reffer to melee only (if they meant that 'flanking bonus' and 'flanking' are, in fact, different things, the rules are perfectly stated as they are now).
*I find that scennario to be not very practical if we take the whole set of rules (feats, class abilities, traits, etc), and not the flanking section alone, as there are a lot of cites about flanked creatures, flanking creatures, other bonuses if flanked or flanking or if you-she-he-it-they flank, etc, and not only about 'attack rolls'.
If the developer team really meant that flanking is restricted to 'when making a melee attack' only, I think that their current redaction of the rules would have been more than a mere oversight.
P.D. I Heartly mean no offense to anyone by what I have said.
more than a mere oversight
The existance of more than ten thousand threads about this topic is a monument to that.
The fact that there is such an insane number of threads on this and the devs have never (to my knowledge) weighed in with any indication that they had any intention of allowing ranged flanking bonuses or ranged flanking sneak attacks seems a fairly decent indication to me that they didn't mean to do so. A pity, I think, but there it is.
That said, the Gang Up feat FAQ really isn't the be-all and end-all of this debate. I belive that particular question was answered before it was even possible to legally threaten with a ranged weapon. The Snap Shot, Improved Snap Shot, and Point Blank Master feats came out after 2010. It's unreasonable to expect a ruling to cover things that aren't possible at the time the ruling is made.
Ok here´s one thing:
Improved Snap Shot got an errata/FAQ recently and got restricted to 10 feet threatening, just as improved whip mastery did.
Whip is a reach weapon, but follows the rules for ranged combat.
So now ranged weapons and reach weapons are all in line with the area they are threatening.
To provide flanking, you only need to be threatening, no mention on the type of weapon.
To receive flanking, you need to be wielding a melee weapon though, which any ranged weapon is not, despite (improved) snap shot.
Ergo no sneak attack there either.
This has nothing to do with any feats but all with the flanking text itself, where it clearly says "melee attack".
The fact that there is such an insane number of threads on this and the devs have never (to my knowledge) weighed in with any indication that they had any intention of allowing ranged flanking bonuses or ranged flanking sneak attacks seems a fairly decent indication to me that they didn't mean to do so. A pity, I think, but there it is.
That said, the Gang Up feat FAQ really isn't the be-all and end-all of this debate. I belive that particular question was answered before it was even possible to legally threaten with a ranged weapon. The Snap Shot, Improved Snap Shot, and Point Blank Master feats came out after 2010. It's unreasonable to expect a ruling to cover things that aren't possible at the time the ruling is made.
The problem with that argument re: the Gang Up FAQ is that is implies that one needs to threaten to benefit from flanking, which is not what the Ranged Flank side is arguing.
The Pro-Ranged Flank side argues that flanking is merely positional. I.e., if the relevant parties are in the correct positions, flanking applies. The PRF group disassociates the first and second paragraphs of the Flanking entry. "Threatening" only appears in the first, not the second. If the argument is that the melee restriction doesn't apply to the second part because it does not appear there, then the threatening restriction also should not apply for the same reason. Thus, threatening is irrelevant to a determination of whether someone is flanking an opponent.
As for a more general note, it's not that the No-Ranged Flank side is arguing (for the most part) that Flanking and the Flanking Bonus are the same thing; the argument is that both things are caused by the same circumstances - they both result from the same cause. Specifically, are the relevant parties in the correct position and is a relevant attack being made - if both are yes, you are 1. flanking and 2. can apply the flanking bonus (obviously, absent other relevant abilities that interact with how flanking applies, but which aren't relevant to the conversation about how flanking functions in the basic sense).
The existent language encapsulates this just fine right now. Undoubtedly, it could be clearer if the intent is to disallow ranged flanking. Many things in these rulebooks could be clearer. That it could be clearer doesn't mean it is indecipherable. If the intent is to allow ranged flanking (and if the intent ever was to allow ranged flanking) the current language is not a particularly effective way of communicating that (the language-based argument for ranged flanking is less clear than the argument against, based on construction of the statements). And more importantly (and this is a question I've asked before in these threads and I don't think I've gotten a response): if ranged flanking was the intent all along, why was the Gang Up FAQ answered with a No?
If ranged flanking is ordinarily acceptable because, as the PRF side argues, flanking is solely positional, why would a feat that only alters the positional aspect of flanking exclude ranged flanking (which we're assuming is already something characters can do here)? Simply put, people argue you can flank if you're standing on opposite sides of an enemy. All Gang Up does is mean you no longer have to be standing opposite of an ally to flank an enemy. What type of attack you are making never enters the discussion - all that changes is where you need to be standing to flank. If you could flank with a ranged weapon while having to stand opposite an ally, why can't you flank an enemy with a ranged weapon when all this feat does is say you no longer have to be standing opposite an ally?
The bottom line is that while the Con side's argument relies on rules language that doesn't read as clearly as people would like, the Pro side's argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny, whatsoever. Within the context of all the information given, including the rules entry, the function of Gang Up, and the FAQ re: Gang Up, the PRF argument doesn't really make sense.
This has all been presented before. So I highly doubt it will make any difference now. But I legitimately do not understand how one can argue that the intent is to allow ranged flanking when confronted with the Gang Up FAQ, particularly when the argument is predicated on position of combatants.
I don't really have a problem with ranged flanking. I wouldn't at all have a problem with it if they allowed it. I've also said I think it could be helpful to make "flanked" an explicit condition, instead of a maybe/quasi implicit one like it is now. But based on rules language at this point, I don't think there's any basis for it, nor do I think it was ever the intent.
Let's imagine Lydia. She is a rogue. Gang up allows her (the attacker) to count as being flanking in a situation where she DOES NOT flank her target (the defender). The target is not flanked.
1) Since the 'flanking bonus' applies when making a melee attack (fair enough) AND counting as flanking, Gang Up won't benefit ranged attacks.
2) Sneak attack rules apply when the rogue flanks her target. THIS could be when counting as flanking OR when the target is flanked by the rogue.
The entire rulebook suggest that flanking is a far more complex and beautiful construct than 'when making a melee attack'. It will be sad if or when they (the developers) announce it is'nt.
P.D. I'm not trying to convince anyone, just explaining my point as it seemed to be unclear so far.
Let's imagine Lydia. She is a rogue. Gang up allows her (the attacker) to count as being flanking in a situation where she DOES NOT flank her target (the defender). The target is not flanked.
1) Since the 'flanking bonus' applies when making a melee attack (fair enough) AND counting as flanking, Gang Up won't benefit ranged attacks.
2) Sneak attack rules apply when the rogue flanks her target. THIS could be when counting as flanking OR when the target is flanked by the rogue.
The entire rulebook suggest that flanking is a far more complex and beautiful construct than 'when making a melee attack'. It will be sad if or when they (the developers) announce it is'nt.
P.D. I'm not trying to convince anyone, just explaining my point as it seemed to be unclear so far.
FTFY. Remember the /'s go in front of the second one, not behind it.
Unfortunately, this is probably the final nail in the coffin per RAW, and there is a precedent for this too. If you count as something, then you aren't actually that something. This is no different than Spells V.S. SLAs. SLAs count and are treated as Spells for all intents and purposes, but aren't actually Spells (i.e. the class feature "Spells"), which is what Prestige Classes require (the "Spells" class feature). Although SLAs count as Spells they aren't a Class Feature, they're simply Spells that aren't tied to a Class Feature.
If SLAs aren't Spells, then providing flanking (read: counting as flanking) isn't really flanking, which means that effects like Gang Up would not apply Sneak Attack (since you have to actually be flanking, not count as flanking).
So, with that said, it appears there's yet another reason why Rogues are just plain useless to play, and are doubly useless as ranged aficionados.
For the record, I'm not saying that the examples listed by the OP would allow ranged flanking benefits.
I am only arguing that the rules as written do not disallow ranged flanking in theory, otherwise the Gang-Up FAQ would not have had to be made.
FAQ"s do answer obvious questions if enough people make noise about it.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
37 people and going.
I think this is the largest FAQ total for a question on this topic. Let's hope we see a merry xmas on this!
Keep telling people you know to click FAQ on this ***link***
Looks like somebody fixed the bold thing in my previous post O.o Thanks!
If SLAs aren't Spells, then providing flanking (read: counting as flanking) isn't really flanking, which means that effects like Gang Up would not apply Sneak Attack (since you have to actually be flanking, not count as flanking).
So I suspected. As I said before, by the logic I'm suggesting, Back to Back won't protect you from Gang Up, and Gang Up probably won't allow you to sneak attack =s
Yet more fun... :)
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.
For those that argue you must use all the text, why does this restatement of flanking get ignored? It does not mention melee, weapons, or threatening, yet states what is needed to flank.
/cevah
Yet more fun... :)
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.For those that argue you must use all the text, why does this restatement of flanking get ignored? It does not mention melee, weapons, or threatening, yet states what is needed to flank.
/cevah
Specific trumps general. In this case, the Combat text would trump the Normal text, as it's more specific in terms of what constitutes flanking.
The Normal in this case, means you can only get the +2 Flanking Bonus (and actually Flank) if you're opposite an ally. With the feat, you don't have to do that (but you're still not actually Flanking an enemy for that +2).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet more fun... :)
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.For those that argue you must use all the text, why does this restatement of flanking get ignored? It does not mention melee, weapons, or threatening, yet states what is needed to flank.
/cevah
The normal text also doesn't mention anything about getting a +2 to melee attacks while flanking. Does that mean that that bonus doesn't actually exist?
The context here is the Gang-up feat. All the gang-up feat changes about flanking is the position requirements. The Normal text on gang-up feat explains what the normal position requirements are for flanking. It does NOT re-iterate the flanking rules in their entirety. It doesn't need to. It explained what is changed, and the normal part tells you how the part that was changed is normally ruled.
I mean, you wouldn't declare that the charge action does not grant a +2 to the attack simply because:
Charge of the rightous makes no mention of charging granting a +2 to attack.
Normal: When you charge, you take a –2 penalty to AC until the start of your next turn.
If I felt the need I'm sure I could find a dozen more feats with similar contextual scope of the normal text.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Gang Up (Combat)
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.
I mean, you wouldn't declare that the charge action does not grant a +2 to the attack simply because:
Charge of the Righteous makes no mention of charging granting a +2 to attack.
Normal: When you charge, you take a –2 penalty to AC until the start of your next turn.
Excellent example.
Yet more fun... :)
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.For those that argue you must use all the text, why does this restatement of flanking get ignored? It does not mention melee, weapons, or threatening, yet states what is needed to flank.
/cevah
Lol.
Nothing states you must use a certain type of weapon, you must be in a specific position or circumstance other than opposite your flank-buddy (whom is threatening). Ergo, anything that it opposite someone who threatens flanks. It's that simple.
P.S. when I say rules change, I mean clarification, not an actual change: the rule, whether pro/con, was technically that way no matter what it is now, but now the wording is changed to reflect that.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I mean clarification, not an actual change: the rule, whether pro/con, was technically that way no matter what it is now, but now the wording is changed to reflect that.
That is confusing to me. When you say clarification I think "ok so the words in the book don't change" but then you say "wording is changed".
I'm confident should they side with one side or the other, I don't see the words in the book being changed. I believe it is more likely they will say "this is the correct interpretation of those words" and be done.
Gang Up would not apply Sneak Attack (since you have to actually be flanking, not count as flanking).
So, with that said, it appears there's yet another reason why Rogues are just plain useless to play, and are doubly useless as ranged aficionados.
Gang Up says that " You are considered to be flanking an opponent". I don't see why that is insufficient to allow sneak attack. That's pretty much the whole point of the feat - to allow Rogues to get sneak attack in extra situations.
"Providing a flank" is relevant to Snap Shot et al. Also, to the two parties members who are allowing the Rogue to flank via Gang Up.
The Rogue benefiting from Gang Up is considered to be flanking, meaning s/he flanks her opponent for the purpose of sneak attack.
Yet more fun... :)
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.For those that argue you must use all the text, why does this restatement of flanking get ignored? It does not mention melee, weapons, or threatening, yet states what is needed to flank.
/cevah
Because Gang Up only impacts the positional aspect of flanking. We know it doesn't change what type of attack is relevant because the FAQ explicitly tells us that it doesn't apply to ranged attacks (which again, doesn't make any kind of sense if you can normally benefit from flanking with ranged attacks).
As was mentioned by bbangerter, you only mention that normal rule for the parts of the rule affected by the feat.
Yet more fun... :)
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.For those that argue you must use all the text, why does this restatement of flanking get ignored? It does not mention melee, weapons, or threatening, yet states what is needed to flank.
/cevah
Because Gang Up only impacts the positional aspect of flanking. We know it doesn't change what type of attack is relevant because the FAQ explicitly tells us that it doesn't apply to ranged attacks (which again, doesn't make any kind of sense if you can normally benefit from flanking with ranged attacks).
As was mentioned by bbangerter, you only mention that normal rule for the parts of the rule affected by the feat.
We know this because the feat does not mention altering the type of attack needed. Or even if an attack if needed.
What the FAQ states is that this feat does not benefit. Not that flanking is melee only.The FAQ talks about the flanking rules without actually including the text of the rules. Thus, for you to parse it, you must understand the flanking rules. Saying the rule is *X* because it talks about *Y* is flawed logic. Does the talk actually say *Y* --> *X*? That is what the argument is about. Some say yes, some say no.
I cannot use the FAQ to shore up flanking rules, since it does not actually say anything about flanking in general, only about the feat's use of flanking. Thus we are left as though the feat, and FAQ, do not exist as far as proof for the flanking rules.
/cevah
|
@Cevah: Can you cite actual rules, other than ones saying you cannot benefit from flanking with ranged weapons, that state you can flank with ranged weapons?
Right now, the only reference to ranged weapons and flanking are rules stating you cannot gain the benefit of flanking with ranged weapons, like Gang Up.
Please cite for me ANY rules referencing flanking with ranged weapons. ANY rules.
Oh, and right now, the only citation I know of is the one in the Gang Up FAQ saying you cannot flank with ranged weapons, as normal.
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)
So, other than this, and the regular rules on flanking:
[url=http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html#flanking]Flanking[/uerl]
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.
The first sentence defines who can flank: when making a melee attack.
Second sentence defines how you can see if you are flanking when making a melee attack.The third sentence contains an exception for larger creatures.
The fourth sentence contains an exception about your flanking buddy's needing to threaten the target.
The final sentence includes another exception for creatures that can provide flanking.
So, flanking is defined for a character or creature making a melee attack.
Flanking can be defined using any square as the source for flanking of a larger creature.
Flanking can only be provided by a creature who threatens the target.
And creatures with a reach of 0 normally cannot threaten someone outside their own square, so cannot provide a flank. Normally.
Yet more fun... :)
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.For those that argue you must use all the text, why does this restatement of flanking get ignored? It does not mention melee, weapons, or threatening, yet states what is needed to flank.
/cevah
Because Gang Up only impacts the positional aspect of flanking. We know it doesn't change what type of attack is relevant because the FAQ explicitly tells us that it doesn't apply to ranged attacks (which again, doesn't make any kind of sense if you can normally benefit from flanking with ranged attacks).
As was mentioned by bbangerter, you only mention that normal rule for the parts of the rule affected by the feat.
We know this because the feat does not mention altering the type of attack needed. Or even if an attack if needed.
What the FAQ states is that this feat does not benefit. Not that flanking is melee only.The FAQ talks about the flanking rules without actually including the text of the rules. Thus, for you to parse it, you must understand the flanking rules. Saying the rule is *X* because it talks about *Y* is flawed logic. Does the talk actually say *Y* --> *X*? That is what the argument is about. Some say yes, some say no.
No, it is not flawed logic. The point I am making is if you can normally flank with range, why do we have an explicit mention that you cannot use Gang Up with ranged attacks when Gang Up does not mention ranged attacks? This point absolutely does follow. You are saying we cannot derive any information about ranged flanking from the Gang Up feat and FAQ because Gang Up does not mention ranged attacks. But this is precisely the point. If you could ordinarily flank from range, there would be no reason for the Gang Up feat to specifically discuss ranged flanking - you can already do it, so why talk about it? And if you do talk about it, why is the answer no? Assuming you could already do it, and the feat doesn't mention changing it, why can you no longer do it after taking the feat?
The fact that the Gang Up FAQ specifically disallows ranged attacks absolutely implies that flanking ordinarily does not apply to ranged attacks. Why? Because ranged weapons do not benefit from Gang Up, but if you can ordinarily flank with ranged weapons that would be a specific change from the normal rules and would need to be called out. Since there is no difference stated, we have no reason to think that flanking via Gang Up is any different than flanking ordinarily except for how we're explicitly told it is different - and that is in regard to position only.
So again, this isn't flawed logic despite your protestations. It follows quite directly from everything we've been told. And it also matches what you've previously agreed is the intent for how this is supposed to function.
@Cevah: Can you cite actual rules, other than ones saying you cannot benefit from flanking with ranged weapons, that state you can flank with ranged weapons?
The only rule I am aware of is the FAQ "correction" of the Gang-Up feat, and it is specific to that feat and not a general rule.
Please read the FAQ carefully. It gives a specific exception, and not a general rule about ranged flanking. Trying to make a specific rule a general one is going against the intent of the FAQ system.
So, other than this, and the regular rules on flanking:
Flanking
The first sentence defines who can flank: when making a melee attack.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.
Nope. It defines who can get a bonus.
Second sentence defines how you can see if you are flanking when making a melee attack.
Nope. No mention of an attack at all. Just instructions for testing if you are flanking. The third sentence is how to determine if you are actually flanking.
The third sentence contains an exception for larger creatures.
Nope. Fourth sentence. :-)
The fourth sentence contains an exception about your flanking buddy's needing to threaten the target.
Nope. Fifth sentence. The need to threaten is for the bonus, not for flanking.
The final sentence includes another exception for creatures that can provide flanking.
Nope. Sixth sentence. :-)
So, flanking is defined for a character or creature making a melee attack.
As well as someone just standing there.
Flanking can be defined using any square as the source for flanking of a larger creature.
Agreed.
Flanking can only be provided by a creature who threatens the target.
Nope. That is the flanking bonus.
And creatures with a reach of 0 normally cannot threaten someone outside their own square, so cannot provide a flank. Normally.
Agreed.
----
No, it is not flawed logic. The point I am making is if you can normally flank with range, why do we have an explicit mention that you cannot use Gang Up with ranged attacks when Gang Up does not mention ranged attacks?
If the writers/editors of Gang-Up thought flanking was melee only, they would not bother to put exceptions in about ranged. We know what they thought from their posts.
This point absolutely does follow. You are saying we cannot derive any information about ranged flanking from the Gang Up feat and FAQ because Gang Up does not mention ranged attacks. But this is precisely the point. If you could ordinarily flank from range, there would be no reason for the Gang Up feat to specifically discuss ranged flanking - you can already do it, so why talk about it? And if you do talk about it, why is the answer no? Assuming you could already do it, and the feat doesn't mention changing it, why can you no longer do it after taking the feat?
The fact that a FAQ was needed, indicates there was enough belief that ranged flanking does work. Given developer statements, it is fairly clear they don't want it. However, that is not what they wrote in the CRB.
The specific disallowing of ranged flanking changes the feat. That is the point of the FAQ.
The fact that the Gang Up FAQ specifically disallows ranged attacks absolutely implies that flanking ordinarily does not apply to ranged attacks. Why? Because ranged weapons do not benefit from Gang Up, but if you can ordinarily flank with ranged weapons that would be a specific change from the normal rules and would need to be called out.
The fact that it specifically disallows ranged flanking actually implies ranged flanking does work normally. You don't specifically disallow something generally disallowed.
/cevah
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If the writers/editors of Gang-Up thought flanking was melee only, they would not bother to put exceptions in about ranged. We know what they thought from their posts.
The fact that a FAQ was needed, indicates there was enough belief that ranged flanking does work. Given developer statements, it is fairly clear they don't want it. However, that is not what they wrote in the CRB.
Actually, the writers of Gang Up think the idea of ranged flanking is is not possible. It has been made clear in posts and clear in the Gang Up faq.
There are a few people that believe the rules say ranged flanking is possible. Those few are very confident of their opinion and no amount of developer comments or evidence will dissuade them from their view.
The reason the question was asked was likely not driven by people thinking that ranged flanking was possible, but because the wording of Gang Up clearly opens up the possibilities re: flanking quite a bit. Even if the thought was that you could ranged flank pre-dated Gang Up, when answering the FAQ re: Gang Up they necessarily have to consider the ranged flanking question.
There are three possibilities for this: You cannot ranged flank pre-Gang Up, and you cannot ranged flank post; you can ranged flank per-Gang Up, and you can post; you cannot ranged flank pre-Gang Up, but you can post.
If you can flank at range pre-Gang Up, it makes no sense to disallow Gang Up from benefiting. None whatsoever, particularly not for a direct reason like "It doesn't say you can flank at range, so you can't".
So the only question is whether you can ranged flank post-Gang Up. They answered that question in the Gang Up FAQ with a resounding no. Again, it makes literally no sense to deny ranged flanking to people with the Gang Up feat, particularly for the reasons they denied it, if you are allowed to flank at ranged already.
How does the wording of the FAQ change the feat? That presupposes that it necessarily allowed ranged flanking to begin with. The feat pretty clearly was never intended to allow ranged flanking, so how does a FAQ that says, "No, you can't do that because we didn't ever say you could" change what the feat does? It seems far more likely that the FAQ was intended to address an apparent misapprehension that Gang Up now allowed ranged flanking, where it wasn't allowed before.
But ultimately, what blows my mind about most of this discussion is that people know what was intended. You state unequivocally that you believe the developers do not want ranged flanking. At best we have two possible, valid interpretations of the original flanking language. Obviously, you believe that the language supports it. But do you legitimately think that it's not even a reasonable interpretation to think that the language does not support it? You prefer one reading over another, but that doesn't make the interpretation you disagree with in invalid on its face. I have to assume you agree with me on that. If not, there's no point in having any discussion because we so woefully disagree on the fundamental use of language that no ground will ever be covered.
So assuming you agree we have two relatively valid interpretations of the language used (though we can disagree on the relative merit and validity of each), and we agree on what the actual intent of the developers is (they pretty obviously favor one interpretation over the other), why on Earth are you arguing so strenuously in favor of the clearly disfavored interpretation? You say you know how it's supposed to work, so why do you fight it so much? Unquestionably, the language used could be clearer. As I've said over and over in this and other debates, that is true for any number of rules. There exists ambiguity all over the place.
But if you know how it is intended to be played, and the intent is easily derivable from the language that was used, is it really all that ambiguous?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if you know how it is intended to be played, and the intent is easily derivable from the language that was used, is it really all that ambiguous?
I think there is some concept that RAW is used sometimes by people who enjoy having an interpretation that wildly deviates from the intended interpretation while still having at least a strained way to interpret it their way.
I believe there were 3 people who supported the "yes ranged flanking is a thing" side in this thread and far more that disagree with that side. We have 45 FAQ clicks. I suspect at least 42 of them (93%) want this topic stopped by a new FAQ and believe that FAQ will confirm you can't ranged flank.
For what it's worth, this appears to be the original Gang Up FAQ thread. It doesn't seem to me like the question was "Since we can already flank at range, can we also flank at range with Gang Up". That seems like a really silly question to ask, to be frank.
Rather it much more likely reads like people asking, since Gang Up already opens up flanking somewhat, did it also open up the option of ranged flanking.
YMMV
There are
threepossibilities for this: You cannot ranged flank pre-Gang Up, and you cannot ranged flank post; you can ranged flank per-Gang Up, and you can post; you cannot ranged flank pre-Gang Up, but you can post.If you can flank at range pre-Gang Up, it makes no sense to disallow Gang Up from benefiting. None whatsoever, particularly not for a direct reason like "It doesn't say you can flank at range, so you can't".
If the feat was intended to enable mob tactics, rather than just more flanking possibilities, it makes sense to disallow ranged options.
So the only question is whether you can ranged flank post-Gang Up. They answered that question in the Gang Up FAQ with a resounding no. Again, it makes literally no sense to deny ranged flanking to people with the Gang Up feat, particularly for the reasons they denied it, if you are allowed to flank at ranged already.
The came in with that resounding no for the feat only. They did not say resounding no to the general possibility.
How does the wording of the FAQ change the feat? That presupposes that it necessarily allowed ranged flanking to begin with. The feat pretty clearly was never intended to allow ranged flanking, so how does a FAQ that says, "No, you can't do that because we didn't ever say you could" change what the feat does? It seems far more likely that the FAQ was intended to address an apparent misapprehension that Gang Up now allowed ranged flanking, where it wasn't allowed before.
With ranged flanking on the table before the feat, the feat made for more possible positions for ranged flanking. The FAQ removed those new possibilities. That is the change.
If ranged flanking is not possible at all, then the feat does not allow it to happen. So there would not be a need for a FAQ for the feat.
The wording of the FAQ gives a specific no. That implies that there is a general yes. This lines up with the idea that ranged flanking does exist normally.
But ultimately, what blows my mind about most of this discussion is that people know what was intended. You state unequivocally that you believe the developers do not want ranged flanking. At best we have two possible, valid interpretations of the original flanking language. Obviously, you believe that the language supports it. But do you legitimately think that it's not even a reasonable interpretation to think that the language does not support it? You prefer one reading over another, but that doesn't make the interpretation you disagree with in invalid on its face. I have to assume you agree with me on that. If not, there's no point in having any discussion because we so woefully disagree on the fundamental use of language that no ground will ever be covered.
I know people read it and come to different conclusions. I see the rules of English makes it parse out one way. Others think otherwise. I may disagree with them, but I don't deny they come by their opinion honestly.
So assuming you agree we have two relatively valid interpretations of the language used (though we can disagree on the relative merit and validity of each), and we agree on what the actual intent of the developers is (they pretty obviously favor one interpretation over the other), why on Earth are you arguing so strenuously in favor of the clearly disfavored interpretation? You say you know how it's supposed to work, so why do you fight it so much? Unquestionably, the language used could be clearer. As I've said over and over in this and other debates, that is true for any number of rules. There exists ambiguity all over the place.
But if you know how it is intended to be played, and the intent is easily derivable from the language that was used, is it really all that ambiguous?
As the essential question is what the RAW is, I am trying to show what the RAW is.
What the RAI is, is essentially agreed upon.
If you don't know what the rules actually say, how can you choose to houserule or choose to play RAW correctly? How can you fix the incorrect wording if no one points it out?
You want the wording to preclude ranged flanking? Get a FAQ / errata to that effect. The Gang-Up FAQ is too specific to count.
But if you know how it is intended to be played, and the intent is easily derivable from the language that was used, is it really all that ambiguous?I think there is some concept that RAW is used sometimes by people who enjoy having an interpretation that wildly deviates from the intended interpretation while still having at least a strained way to interpret it their way.
I believe there were 3 people who supported the "yes ranged flanking is a thing" side in this thread and far more that disagree with that side. We have 45 FAQ clicks. I suspect at least 42 of them (93%) want this topic stopped by a new FAQ and believe that FAQ will confirm you can't ranged flank.
There is a difference between wanting it settled and wanting it ruled one way or the other. *I* would be happy either way it comes down.
/cevah
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
[FAQ] ... resounding no for the feat only. They did not say resounding no to the general possibility.
what the RAW is, I am trying to show what the RAW is.
*I* would be happy either way it comes down.
Your definition of resounding no is off, pretty much everyone including the developers think it is a resounding yes. Yes as in covers Flanking and not Gang Up, especially when they said Gang Up doesn't work ranged because Flanking doesn't work ranged.
RAW isn't something you get to dictate, RAW is something the GM gets to read and determine by using his interpretation.
I'd also be happy either way, I honestly don't care.
"ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat."
Looks specific to me.
/cevah
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
"ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat."
Looks specific to me.
/cevah
and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat
Not anything to do with the feat. Flanking is melee, as a result this feat doesn't provide any benefit to ranged.
Explicitly specifically disallows ranged flanking.
"ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat."
Oh really :O
For those that argue you must use all the text....
Like the entire sentence in the FAQ that explains why ranged doesn't benefit from this feat - that being because there is no such thing as a ranged flank.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
"ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat."
Oh really :O
For those that argue you must use all the text....Like the entire sentence in the FAQ that explains why ranged doesn't benefit from this feat - that being because there is no such thing as a ranged flank.
I think that is called "not eating his own dog food". When he says you must use all the text, then clips out the text that explicitly directly unambiguously means the exact opposite of what he tries to suggest?
Boys, you do really get carried away sometimes xD
1. Yes, I think you MUST be making a melee attack to get a flanking bonus.
2. Snap shot allows you to threaten squares around you, giving you the possibility to make enemies being flanked.
3. Sneak attack applies 'when the rogue flanks her target'.
4. Yes, I'm almost certain the developers will resolve 'you cant sneak attack with ranged weapones while flanking' and it's ok. I would take that answer as official rule, and any other rule stating otherwise as a houserule.
I dont think that the interpretation of the rules is the main trouble here, but the interpretation of the developers. The rules as they are stated do not restrain the act of 'sneak attack with a ranged weapon when the rogue flanks her target' at all.
(No offense)
I always prefer to use the rulebooks as contracts, and not as letters open to interpretation of what the writers meant. If there are ambiguities or shortcuts, take them. The arbiter part (wich I think it's existance is mandatory) has always the final decision of course.
(Personal opinion again)
bbangerter and James already hit it. However,
The came in with that resounding no for the feat only. They did not say resounding no to the general possibility.
But in coming to that resounding no, they had to consider whether ranged flanking is permissible at all. You keep saying RAW is unclear, even though the developers clearly intended not to allow ranged flanking. They answered this question specifically, but in doing so (as has been pointed out time and again), they equally explicitly stated that flanking specifically requires melee attacks. The original flanking entry. From the CRB.
In making that statement, while answering a specific question, they unequivocally tell us how flanking works - it specifically calls out melee attacks. They don't say this feat doesn't allow ranged flanking because their intent was to focus on letting people gang up on enemies in close quarters; they say it doesn't allow ranged flanking because flanking itself requires melee attacks and this feat does nothing to change that.
With ranged flanking on the table before the feat, the feat made for more possible positions for ranged flanking. The FAQ removed those new possibilities. That is the change.
If ranged flanking is not possible at all, then the feat does not allow it to happen. So there would not be a need for a FAQ for the feat.
The wording of the FAQ gives a specific no. That implies that there is a general yes. This lines up with the idea that ranged flanking does exist normally.
In the first case, wrong. That presupposes ranged flanking being permissible, which is what we're addressing. The reason the FAQ was necessary was because people thought the language of Gang Up added a new possibility for flanking. I linked the thread that got the FAQ. There's not a ton of discussion either way, but it predominantly seems to favor the "we couldn't before, but maybe this new feat allows it" interpretation, as opposed to what you are arguing.
Regarding the specific no, the specific no is again not so specific. As laid out above, the reason given isn't "this feat doesn't mention benefiting ranged attacks" (which again, would be a silly thing to call out if ranged attacks already benefited from flanking). The answer is no because flanking requires melee and this feat does nothing to change that requirement by specifically mentioning ranged weapons. The feat wouldn't have to specifically mention ranged weapons to allow flanking with them if ranged weapons could already be used to flank.
I mean clarification, not an actual change: the rule, whether pro/con, was technically that way no matter what it is now, but now the wording is changed to reflect that.That is confusing to me. When you say clarification I think "ok so the words in the book don't change" but then you say "wording is changed".
I'm confident should they side with one side or the other, I don't see the words in the book being changed. I believe it is more likely they will say "this is the correct interpretation of those words" and be done.
What I mean is that whatever the "new" rules read is what the rules originally were whether or not old wording implied the same. Think of it as rules change is a change in RAI but a rule wording change is a RAW change to try and better reflect RAI.
I think that is called "not eating his own dog food". When he says you must use all the text, then clips out the text that explicitly directly unambiguously means the exact opposite of what he tries to suggest?"ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat."
Oh really :O
For those that argue you must use all the text....Like the entire sentence in the FAQ that explains why ranged doesn't benefit from this feat - that being because there is no such thing as a ranged flank.
A reminder that the FAQ is a supplement and CORE>SUPPLEMENT. Since the supplement is making a statement not already made in core and not providing a logical basis (based of core) for it, the CORE of "ranged flank is not hindered" (not a direct or actual quote) overrules the SUPPLEMENT of "ranged attacks cannot flank."
"ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat."
Looks specific to me.
/cevah
and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this featNot anything to do with the feat. Flanking is melee, as a result this feat doesn't provide any benefit to ranged.
Explicitly specifically disallows ranged flanking.
I have addressed this before. Let me restate.
It refers to melee in the flanking rules. Does it tell you how melee things work with flanking? No it does not. It assumes how it works. An assumption is not a valid proof.
I assert that melee is required for the +2 flanking bonus only, and not for a flanking condition. I assert that sneak attack only needs the flanking condition and not also the +2 flanking bonus.
If you think the +2 flanking bonus is the exact same thing as the flanking condition you get the result that ranged flanking does not work. If you think these are two distinct things, then you get ranged flanking does work.
I think these are two distinct things, thus, RAW ranged flanking works. And Gang-Up only added positions to the list of possible flanks usable for sneak attack, then the FAQ took them away.
Would you accept as proof "It is raining over in the next town" for the question of "Is it raining outside?" I would not. That is what the FAQ is doing by referring to "melee" existing within the "flanking" rules. You do not get a solid yes/no.
@bbangerter: The entire sentence does not explain why. It assumes that talking about melee within the flanking rules explains it. However, those rules are what are under discussion.
@James Risner: Its called highlighting the point.
Telling me that another part of the rules talks about rules is not proof of anything, hence not important to the point.
@Xuchilbara: Carried away? No. Really? :-)
@fretgod99: They did not state unequivocally that flanking requires melee attacks. They stated that flanking mentions melee. That is a very different statement.
/cevah
A reminder that the FAQ is a supplement and CORE>SUPPLEMENT. Since the supplement is making a statement not already made in core and not providing a logical basis (based of core) for it, the CORE of "ranged flank is not hindered" (not a direct or actual quote) overrules the SUPPLEMENT of "ranged attacks cannot flank."This is totally false.
Actually, it is technically true.
FAQ = Frequently Asked Question.
The answer to a question is to explain how something is/works.
Errata is for making changes in the rules.
However, Pazio has chosen to place some rules changes within the FAQ structure, thus making it hard to figure out if a given FAQ answer is merely explaining or actually changing.
Specifically, the SLA FAQ first defined things one way, then later they changed it to define it another way and make additional changes. Thus it served as a forum for a rules alteration, which is the job of errata.
/cevah
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If you think the +2 flanking bonus is the exact same thing as the flanking condition you get the result that ranged flanking does not work.
If you think these are two distinct things, then you get ranged flanking does work.
Yep that is the same summary we had 200 posts ago.
Only 1 to 3 believe they are distinct like you.
Developers agree with me (you don't agree they do.)
The FAQ agrees with me (you don't agree it does.)
45 people clicked FAQ / approximately 42 think your theory is incorrect but would like them to tell you no
If you think the +2 flanking bonus is the exact same thing as the flanking condition you get the result that ranged flanking does not work.
If you think these are two distinct things, then you get ranged flanking does work.Yep that is the same summary we had 200 posts ago.
Only 1 to 3 believe they are distinct like you.
Developers agree with me (you don't agree they do.)
The FAQ agrees with me (you don't agree it does.)
45 people clicked FAQ / approximately 42 think your theory is incorrect but would like them to tell you no
I agree that you and the developers agree. I don't however think you are correct. What they want and what they wrote are not in agreement.
You think the FAQ agrees with you. I think the FAQ does not apply since it does not clarify things and only applies a specific rule which actually implies the opposite of what you think.45 clicks means 45 people want an answer. The only clue I have as to their opinion is if they posted the fact that they clicked the FAQ button. Since there have not been 45 posts with such information, I cannot determine how many agree or disagree.
/cevah