You don't threaten and therefore can't flank with a ranged weapon, certain feats nonwithstanding.
But since the dagger is a melee weapon that CAN be thrown, this course of action is perfectly valid and mechanically even a good idea, assuming the rogue has a higher dex than str and no weapon finesse. She would provoke an AoO for each of the attacks 'though.
For a visual, watch this video starting around 1:07.
|
You can't flank with ranged attacks.
You flank when you make a melee attack on an enemy who is threatened from the opposite side. Daggers are melee weapons. Ergo, the rogue in the example is indeed flanking the target.
There is no question that they could make melee attacks with the daggers and get the sneak attack bonus in this situation. However, Jeff's objection could be more precisely stated, 'You do not get flanking benefits with ranged attacks'. That is, even though the rogue is indeed flanking their opponent... it doesn't matter. Flanking is a melee only mechanic. So far as ranged attacks are concerned there is no such thing as flanking... it has no impact whatsoever on ranged attacks.
Also note: Throwing in melee range would provoke attacks of opportunity.
|
Can a Rogue gain Sneak Attack damage dice using a Ranged Longbow attack while in flanking position with an ally?No FAQ Required: As per the Gang Up FAQ "flanking specifically refers to melee attacks," so no, the rogue can't do so. As an aside, though it isn't the question asked here, someone threatening with a ranged weapon can provide a flank to an ally who is using a melee weapon.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So a rogue in my game has flanked an enemy and proceed to get a sneak attack... by throwing two daggers right next to the enemy.
Flanking is Melee only, so when you throw a dagger it isn't a melee weapon. It is a ranged attack. You can not gain sneak attack from a ranged attack by flanking.
I'm so glad they clarified that the Gang Up FAQ covers this situation in a previously written FAQ years ago. Otherwise this thread, like the hundreds of others in the past, would have 100 or 1000 posts arguing yes/no back and forth.
|
|
So a rogue in my game has flanked an enemy and proceed to get a sneak attack... by throwing two daggers right next to the enemy.
Can she do this? I mean, it's technically flanking the enemy so a sneak attack applies. But it's a ranged attack. But it's also within 30 feet. Rather it's in melee range, but she did a ranged attack. I'm honestly not sure how to rule it.
You would only get a sneak attack if you have surprise or if you are sniping (which is not related to flanking).
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So since there is no action necessary to "switch" a dagger from melee to throwing your argument is that the rogue threatens and therefor flanks until the exact moment of the attack, when in the time the dagger takes to fly from the hand to the target, the flank is suddenly gone and so is the sneak attack?
It seems to be the case based on the whole "flanking only ever applies to melee attacks, period" ruling, but I find it very weird and would definitely houserule it at my table.
Throwing weapons are weird.
It doesn't need an action. Once you throw your weapon it is no longer a melee attack.
Even if you are holding 2 daggers, 1 in each hand, and you only throw one you continue to threaten and flank. But flanking only applies to melee attacks (barring other abilities), so you don't get the +2 to hit with your thrown weapon, and you don't get your sneak attack.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"switch" a dagger from melee to throwing ... until the exact moment of the attack
Weapons don't switch. Weapons are different types of attacks depending on the type of attack you make.
A throwing dagger is a melee weapon when you make a melee attack with it and a ranged weapon when you throw it. It doesn't switch, not even at the exact moment of the attack.
does this mean that if an opponent is being flanked by two melee characters. an archer then attacks the flanked target from 40 feet away. does the target lose 2 ac from being flanked against the ranged attack or not?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
does this mean that if an opponent is being flanked by two melee characters. an archer then attacks the flanked target from 40 feet away. does the target lose 2 ac from being flanked against the ranged attack or not?
The target gets full AC against the archer. No -2 from 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."
you can't flank with ranged weapons because you have no threatened area with ranged weapons. there is a feat that gives you a threatened area (its pretty expensive) that will let you get flanking if you are close enough (as well as op attacks)
you can't flank with ranged weapons because you have no threatened area with ranged weapons. there is a feat that gives you a threatened area (its pretty expensive) that will let you get flanking if you are close enough (as well as op attacks)
Snap Shot lets you threaten. That lets you provide flanking for an ally. Even if you have Snap Shot, you cannot benefit from flanking with your ranged weapon. Flanking requires melee.
yes, didn't mean to imply otherwise. you don't get the +2 bonus (isn't there an faq on this? im confusing myself trying to remember how it works)
|
|
isn't there an faq on this?
Yes. Or rather, a 'No FAQ required'. TriOmegaZero quoted it upthread here.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
yes, didn't mean to imply otherwise. you don't get the +2 bonus (isn't there an faq on this? im confusing myself trying to remember how it works)
With or without the +2, you wouldn't get Sneak Attack from flanking with a ranged weapon.
There is no FAQ on this and there never will be.
The was a FAQ on Gang Up that said you can't do Gang Up with ranged because you can't flank with ranged.
People still ignored that, and would argue in 1000 post threads that Gang Up was irrelevant since it was only about that feat and when they said no ranged flanking in Gang Up FAQ they only meant for Gang Up.
Recently we finally got an official forum post saying the Gang Up feat answers this go to it. It has been posted in here multiple times.
I am one of those who thinks RAW allows ranged sneak attack.
I am aware of the Gang-Up FAQ and think it does not apply.
I agree no +2 attack.
I am not alone in this opinion. [Albeit an opinion held by few, not many.]
If there has been further PDF posts, can you link them?
/cevah
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If there has been further PDF posts, can you link them?
You are in the thread where it was post.
The two flanking sentences are connected. The first makes it clear that flanking is a melee only thing. The second clarifies when you have flanking.
Separating the two sentences isn't following RAW.
You can house rule it to work if you like.
Oh! The non-FAQ that just confused the issue more.
They should have made it a FAQ.
/cevah
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They should have made it a FAQ.
Maybe, but there are a lot of people who couldn't comprehend why it was confusing in the first place.
In any event, it doesn't matter now. We know the Gang Up FAQ applies to answer the question of whether or not ranged flanking is possible. The answer? It isn't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How was the issue confused more by them saying, "No. The Gang-Up FAQ covers this. You can provide flanking but don't benefit because you're not making a melee attack"?
Oh! The non-FAQ that just confused the issue more.
They should have made it a FAQ.
/cevah
If you are still confused, you are willfully so.
I mean you state
I am aware of the Gang-Up FAQ and think it does not apply.
The PDT in the non-FAQ says basically, It applies. What is there to still be confused about? You were wrong about whether it applied or not. Now you know it does apply.
If you are still confused, you are willfully so.Oh! The non-FAQ that just confused the issue more.
They should have made it a FAQ.
/cevah
I was never confused about what they wanted. I just don't think it was what they wrote.
Occam's Razor.I mean you state
The PDT in the non-FAQ says basically, It applies. What is there to still be confused about? You were wrong about whether it applied or not. Now you know it does apply.I am aware of the Gang-Up FAQ and think it does not apply.
Flanking has two main paragraphs that explain the bulk of it. The first is complicated with lots of bits. The second is simple.
I used the second to come up with ranged flanking RAW.
To say the second paragraph is a subset of the first is to go contrary to standard English usage, which is a point against what they said.
To "refer" to another rule requires the other rule be understood. The Gang-Up FAQ assumed a position on ranged flanking that has not, in my opinion, ever been clear.
Please note, they STILL have not flat out said it is melee only.
I know I will not win this one, but the desire for exact language in me cringes at such abuses of the language.
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are still confused, you are willfully so.Oh! The non-FAQ that just confused the issue more.
They should have made it a FAQ.
/cevah
I was never confused about what they wanted. I just don't think it was what they wrote.
Occam's Razor.I mean you state
The PDT in the non-FAQ says basically, It applies. What is there to still be confused about? You were wrong about whether it applied or not. Now you know it does apply.I am aware of the Gang-Up FAQ and think it does not apply.
Flanking has two main paragraphs that explain the bulk of it. The first is complicated with lots of bits. The second is simple.
I used the second to come up with ranged flanking RAW.
To say the second paragraph is a subset of the first is to go contrary to standard English usage, which is a point against what they said.
To "refer" to another rule requires the other rule be understood. The Gang-Up FAQ assumed a position on ranged flanking that has not, in my opinion, ever been clear.
Please note, they STILL have not flat out said it is melee only.
I know I will not win this one, but the desire for exact language in me cringes at such abuses of the language.
/cevah
Flanking in the core book specially calls out "melee" attacks. Is the confusion because the book did not say "only melee" attacks?
It only applied on melee attacks. How more explicit do you need it to be?
That second paragraph is a simple: If this physically simple test is satisfied, then you are flanking.
Given that simplicity, why should I measure all the complicated conditions in the first paragraph?
Flanking in the core book specially calls out "melee" attacks. Is the confusion because the book did not say "only melee" attacks?
"+2 Flanking Bonus" calls out melee.
I see them as not the same thing.
You two, and the PDT see them as the same thing.
That is the disconnect.
/cevah
|
|
It only applied on melee attacks. How more explicit do you need it to be?That second paragraph is a simple: If this physically simple test is satisfied, then you are flanking.
Given that simplicity, why should I measure all the complicated conditions in the first paragraph?
Does the second paragraph fully explain the purpose of flanking? I believe it does not, otherwise you would not know what benefits you receive for flanking except when called out elsewhere, such as in sneak attack.
I'm also curious why you are only talking about the first and second paragraphs when there are five.
Flanking is for melee. Providing and benefiting from it.
Let's look at snap shot under the "normal" section.
While wielding a ranged weapon, you threaten no squares...
Now let's look at 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.
Seems to speak for itself. Flanking is for melee. Snap shot is the only ability (that I know of) to get ranged flanking.
Does the second paragraph fully explain the purpose of flanking? I believe it does not, otherwise you would not know what benefits you receive for flanking except when called out elsewhere, such as in sneak attack.
When I Entangle someone, they get difficult terrain and may be grabbed. Do I need to explain why this is a good thing in the spell? [Edit: Maybe I'm thinking of Web. I forget.]
Why do I need to explain the purpose of a condition? I can think of plenty of ways to exploit a condition if I know how to force someone to have it
I'm also curious why you are only talking about the first and second paragraphs when there are five.
Flanking has two main paragraphs that explain the bulk of it.
Also, those two paragraphs were central to the bulk of the posts about: does it/doesn't it.
:)
/cevah
|
|
When I Entangle someone, they get difficult terrain and may be grabbed. Do I need to explain why this is a good thing in the spell?
Well, you need to explain more than just...
If the plants in the area are covered in thorns, those in the area take 1 point of damage each time they fail a save against the entangle or fail a check made to break free. Other effects, depending on the local plants, might be possible at GM discretion.
...otherwise people will just think it does 1 point of damage on failed checks.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
To say the second paragraph is a subset of the first is to go contrary to standard English usage, which is a point against what they said.
Please note, they STILL have not flat out said it is melee only.
Your wrong on how English works. Those two sentences are connected, the second explains a word used in the first ("flanked") and nothing more.
They have said it is melee only so many times, I simply don't comprehend how you believe what you believe. That they haven't said it is melee only.
To say the second paragraph is a subset of the first is to go contrary to standard English usage, which is a point against what they said.
Please note, they STILL have not flat out said it is melee only.
Your wrong on how English works. Those two
sentencesare connected, the second explains a word used in the first ("flanked") and nothing more.They have said it is melee only so many times, I simply don't comprehend how you believe what you believe. That they haven't said it is melee only.
Gee, isn't that exactly what sneak attack wants? Someone to be "flanked"?
EDIT: If that paragraph appeared, exactly as is, after defining sneak attacks, it would still define the word "flanking". But in that context, what would you think? That it has to be melee?
I don't believe they want it anything other than melee.
I believe that what they wrote does not give that effect.
That is why I have maintained that RAW allows it, even though they clearly indicate RAI is melee only.
/cevah
EDIT 2: They are paragraphs, not just sentences.
I don't believe they want it anything other than melee.
I believe that what they wrote does not give that effect.
That is why I have maintained that RAW allows it, even though they clearly indicate RAI is melee only.
Since it has been clearly stated multiple times by official sources that flanking is melee only, that gives me the inclination to say that flanking is melee only. Even with very questionable parsing of the English language, the argument that flanking is for ranged is extremely weak. Logic combined with official authority on the subject leads to the conclusion that melee is flanking only. It's how the language parses, it's the simpler answer, and according to multiple official sources it is the correct answer. There is zero ambiguity, and that's coming from a person whose answer to most rules questions is "It can be interpreted multiple ways, ask your GM".
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
That is why I have maintained that RAW allows it, even though they clearly indicate RAI is melee only.
Well at this point what you think the RAW is doesn't matter. We know what the RAW is. We know they are not going to change the text, mostly because you are in the 1 percent of the 1 percent.
To say the second paragraph is a subset of the first is to go contrary to standard English usage, which is a point against what they said.
English language rules get broken all the time. It doesn't occur often in a book where editors versed in the language rules go through it, but it still happens (as has been shown here).
Its far more important to read and understand things as a whole within a given context.
Finding minor infractions in the rules of language and wresting the rules into some other meaning by doing so isn't valuable.
None of that actually demonstrates how the PDT saying, "Yeah, when we said flanking requires melee attacks in the Gang Up FAQ, we really meant that flanking requires melee attacks", made things more confusing.
None of that actually demonstrates how the PDT saying, "Yeah, when we said flanking requires melee attacks in the Gang Up FAQ, we really meant that flanking requires melee attacks", made things more confusing.
I understand the ruling and will abide by it.
However, to me, it breaks with the standard logic of the game, or at least what I expected to be the standard logic.
I always understood that flanking was melee only. I also always understood that this was due to the fact that a character with ranged weapons does not threaten. I believed that this correlation was the causation.
I also believed that anything specific (such as Snap Shot) that allowed a character to threaten also allowed them to flank, even if this diverges from the general. As most of us likely agree Specific trumps General in regards to this game.
Furthermore, an Attack of Opportunity is also a melee attack. Just like flanking, it is based on the ability to threaten with a melee weapon.
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack..."
"An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack..."
So as I understood it, since a character could threaten with a ranged weapon via Snap Shot, a character could flank with a weapon via Snap Shot. But most amazingly, it was ruled a character can only half-flank with Snap Shot. I mean really, is there any other possible way that a person can provide a flanking bonus with a weapon but when attacking with that weapon in the only manner possible, not gain one themselves? It seems illogical.
I may have been incorrect, or the Devs may have changed the intent. Either way, I believe that many people reasoned it out the way that I did. As such, they are having a difficult time with why there is a break in the logic.
To me, it appears to be a "power level" ruling rather than a "game logic" ruling. Which is fine, the Devs are clearly able to make those decisions, much like the metaphysical off-hand ruling. It does not make the ruling any less valid.
It does however, make the ruling much harder to understand or agree with.
|
|
None of that actually demonstrates how the PDT saying, "Yeah, when we said flanking requires melee attacks in the Gang Up FAQ, we really meant that flanking requires melee attacks", made things more confusing.I understand the ruling and will abide by it.
However, to me, it breaks with the standard logic of the game, or at least what I expected to be the standard logic.
I always understood that flanking was melee only. I also always understood that this was due to the fact that a character with ranged weapons does not threaten. I believed that this correlation was the causation.
I also believed that anything specific (such as Snap Shot) that allowed a character to threaten also allowed them to flank, even if this diverges from the general. As most of us likely agree Specific trumps General in regards to this game.
Furthermore, an Attack of Opportunity is also a melee attack. Just like flanking, it is based on the ability to threaten with a melee weapon.
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack..."
"An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack..."
So as I understood it, since a character could threaten with a ranged weapon via Snap Shot, a character could flank with a weapon via Snap Shot. But most amazingly, it was ruled a character can only half-flank with Snap Shot. I mean really, is there any other possible way that a person can provide a flanking bonus with a weapon but when attacking with that weapon in the only manner possible, not gain one themselves? It seems illogical.
I may have been incorrect, or the Devs may have changed the intent. Either way, I believe that many people reasoned it out the way that I did. As such, they are having a difficult time with why there is a break in the logic.
To me, it appears to be a "power level" ruling rather than a "game logic" ruling. Which is fine, the Devs are clearly able to make those decisions, much like the metaphysical...
Actually, to me, it makes perfect sense.
Just because you threaten with a weapon, does not mean you get flank from someone else threatening with their weapon.
You can take AoOs with a ranged weapon, if you have the Snap Shot feat.
Consider a situation, where your Rogue is fighting a target with an ally who has levels in Fighter with the Polearm Master archetype. If you read the Flexible Flanker ability of the Polearm Master archetype, he can flank when not flanking. However, as far as the ability goes, it appears that he only actually grants flanking from his actual position.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I may have been incorrect, or the Devs may have changed the intent. Either way, I believe that many people reasoned it out the way that I did. As such, they are having a difficult time with why there is a break in the logic.
I agree some people found it not clear. Some 1900 threads were started related to this question.
I also believe far more people were able to understand the original meaning, which agrees with the FAQ. I come to that conclusion based on never seeing the ranged flanking attempted at a table of actual players in my nearly 300 tables of playing and GM combined.
So as I understood it, since a character could threaten with a ranged weapon via Snap Shot, a character could flank with a weapon via Snap Shot. But most amazingly, it was ruled a character can only half-flank with Snap Shot. I mean really, is there any other possible way that a person can provide a flanking bonus with a weapon but when attacking with that weapon in the only manner possible, not gain one themselves? It seems illogical.
You want more illogic? Two ranged fighters with 10' reach weapons are on opposite sides of the bad guy, and neither threatens adjacent. Illustration:
F _ B _ F
They don't flank.
Why? Because they are not on opposite borders. They are beyond the border, with a whole 5' square between them.
/cevah
So as I understood it, since a character could threaten with a ranged weapon via Snap Shot, a character could flank with a weapon via Snap Shot. But most amazingly, it was ruled a character can only half-flank with Snap Shot. I mean really, is there any other possible way that a person can provide a flanking bonus with a weapon but when attacking with that weapon in the only manner possible, not gain one themselves? It seems illogical.You want more illogic? Two ranged fighters with 10' reach weapons are on opposite sides of the bad guy, and neither threatens adjacent. Illustration:
F _ B _ F
They don't flank.
Why? Because they are not on opposite borders. They are beyond the border, with a whole 5' square between them./cevah
Go back and read the CRB section on flanking. The characters don't have to be standing on opposite borders; they have to threaten opposite borders. The CRB example of the Goblin and Ogre both threatening the Sorcerer contradicts your assertion.
Edit: Ninja'd by Rostam. :)
|
|
So as I understood it, since a character could threaten with a ranged weapon via Snap Shot, a character could flank with a weapon via Snap Shot. But most amazingly, it was ruled a character can only half-flank with Snap Shot. I mean really, is there any other possible way that a person can provide a flanking bonus with a weapon but when attacking with that weapon in the only manner possible, not gain one themselves? It seems illogical.You want more illogic? Two ranged fighters with 10' reach weapons are on opposite sides of the bad guy, and neither threatens adjacent. Illustration:
F _ B _ F
They don't flank.
Why? Because they are not on opposite borders. They are beyond the border, with a whole 5' square between them./cevah
As TOZ said, What?
In a more serious rejoinder, check the illustration for flanking for the Ogre and the Goblin.