He is. nothing about sneak attack says it allows you to flank at range, and pathfinder is a permissive system. unless it actually says it, you dont get to do it.
You get sneak attack if the enemy is denied dex, or you're flanking. Nothing in that says you get to flank any differently than anyone else, which means at melee.
Nothing about sneak attack lets you flank at range. Ranged sneak attack therefore requires a target to be flat footed or otherwise denied dexterity.
Look at it this way, sneak attack can be triggered by condition a, b or c. Sneak attack also has a range limit of 30'. The range limit of A is 5'.
Where in the preceeding description does is say the range of A raised to 30'?
There's an item called Stag's Head. It gives you a static bonus to Perception and once a day will let you make a ranged attack at Flat-Footed AC, letting you Sneak Attack. But only within 30 feet.
Yeah, flanking is melee only.
Flanking is for threatened areas only, right?
Improved Snap Shot threatens 10' with a bow and would allow flanking just as a reach weapon, correct?
Sniper Slayers can sneak attack within the first range increment of a bow, crossbow, or firearm.
Sniper Rogues increase the 30' sneak attack limit as they level up.
|
Not quite.
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.
If you threaten with a ranged weapon you can give someone a flanking bonus but the bonus from flanking is only to melee attacks so a ranged attacker threatening even at the correct distance and position is not flanking.
The sniper ability still requires stealth, concealment or invisibility. So it has the normal restrictions but at a greater distance.
Due to the range that you can sneak attack at and the one attack a round thing sniping is one of the few times where Vital strike is at least a better option than not using it but only if you can maintain your stealth and range enough to keep the target back.
Not quite.
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.If you threaten with a ranged weapon you can give someone a flanking bonus but the bonus from flanking is only to melee attacks so a ranged attacker threatening even at the correct distance and position is not flanking.
The sniper ability still requires stealth, concealment or invisibility. So it has the normal restrictions but at a greater distance.
The +2 bonus requires making a melee attack.
Sneak attack is not limited to melee attacks.
The next Flanking paragraph states:
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.
Nothing in this paragraph requires an attack, let alone a melee attack.
Most people say flanking is melee only, but the actual text does not make that explicit. I believe it should be melee only.
The Gang Up FAQ is usually pointed to because it has the text "since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks". I agree that it does refer to it for a +2 bonus to the melee attack. But it does not actually state melee only. The feat even states: "Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent." Again no mention of an attack let alone a melee attack.
The idea of flanking came about from the removal of the idea of a Backstab.
To use this ability, the thief must be behind his victim and the victim must be unaware that the thief intends to attack him. If an enemy sees the thief, hears him approach from a blind side, or is warned by another, he is not caught unaware, and the backstab is handled like a normal attack (although bonuses for a rear attack still apply). Opponents in battle will often notice a thief trying to maneuver behind them--the first rule of fighting is to never turn your back on an enemy! However, someone who isn't expecting to be attacked (a friend or ally, perhaps) can be caught unaware even if he knows the thief is behind him.
The multiplier given in Table 30 applies to the amount of damage before modifiers for Strength or weapon bonuses are added. The weapon's standard damage is multiplied by the value given in Table 30. Then Strength and magical weapon bonuses are added.
Backstabbing does have limitations. First, the damage multiplier applies only to the first attack made by the thief, even if multiple attacks are possible. Once a blow is struck, the initial surprise effect is lost. Second, the thief cannot use it on every creature. The victim must be generally humanoid. Part of the skill comes from knowing just where to strike. A thief could backstab an ogre, but he wouldn't be able to do the same to a beholder. The victim must also have a definable back (which leaves out most slimes, jellies, oozes, and the like). Finally, the thief has to be able to reach a significant target area. To backstab a giant, the thief would have to be standing on a ledge or window balcony. Backstabbing him in the ankle just isn't going to be as effective.
"Finally, the thief has to be able to reach a significant target area. To backstab a giant, the thief would have to be standing on a ledge or window balcony."
Clearly the antecedent requires melee.
You will have a hard time getting your GM to accept this.
/cevah
|
|
Check the first words in the flanking paragraph are "when making a melee attack". Everything after that describes what happens when making said melee attack. If you read the paragraph you quoted in context is just describes how do figure out if the melee attacker is flanking.
Look at the attack bonus table +2 for melee and - for ranged there is a dash not a +0. The dashes mean that it can't be done; see ranged weapon from prone and compare that to any of the +0s on the table.
Flanking is the state of having a flanking bonus you determine that using the flanking rules in which you have to attack with a melee attack opposite someone who is flanking.
"Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... ranged flanking ...
Why do you keep touting this line Cevah? The PDT has specifically said no ranged flanking.
Thanks bbangerter, I knew that quote existed but didn't know where to find it.
Erastil.
When in doubt, search Archives of Nethys for whatever you have found on D20pfsrd.
Check the first words in the flanking paragraph are "when making a melee attack". Everything after that describes what happens when making said melee attack. If you read the paragraph you quoted in context is just describes how do figure out if the melee attacker is flanking.
That paragraph has no bearing on a ranged attack.
Look at the attack bonus table +2 for melee and - for ranged there is a dash not a +0. The dashes mean that it can't be done; see ranged weapon from prone and compare that to any of the +0s on the table.
I agree that you get no attack bonus from range. As per the table.
The point does give some traction, but per several FAQs I have noted, every single FAQ indicated text overrules the table. And the second paragraph is quite clear. Also, the table is about attack not damage.
Flanking is the state of having a flanking bonus you determine that using the flanking rules in which you have to attack with a melee attack opposite someone who is flanking.
This I disagree with. Especially given the second paragraph I quoted.
Lets say I am on one side of a large enemy and two allies are threatening on the opposite side.
Either this "+2 flanking bonus" is a typed bonus or it is an untyped bonus.
If it is typed, it does not stack, and the fact I have two allies threatening only gives me a max +2.
It it is untyped, then the two allies each provide this, and I get a +4 bonus.
I don't think anyone thinks I get +4. Therefore I think everyone must agree it is a typed bonus of type "flanking".
With it being typed, what happens if I use a different type word, say "circumstance": When making a melee attack, you get a +2 circumstance bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
Now where is the flanking? It is provided by the next paragraph, which I quoted.
You are insisting I use a bonus type word also as a requirement. That makes no sense to me.
"Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus."
This bonus is to the attack and not a damage bonus.
The rogue's sneak attack precision damage is not a "+2 <type> bonus" on attack, but a damage rider that applies under certain conditions after a hit is confirmed.
... ranged flanking ...Why do you keep touting this line Cevah? The PDT has specifically said no ranged flanking.
The PDT is saying essentially: we already told you how it works in the CRB.
The problem with that, is that the CRB text indicated is the very thing at issue for ranged flanking.I have no problem if they want to just say "Flanking requires melee". Instead the PDT uses lots of extra words to try to explain something, and fails.
/cevah
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Flanking refers to creatures that take up more than one square.
Does flanking thus require a creature to take more than one square to get the bonus?
Refers =/= requires.
/cevah
reference
noun
1. the action of mentioning or alluding to something: "he made reference to the enormous power of the mass media" synonyms: mention of, allusion to, comment on, remark about
2. use of a source of information in order to ascertain something: "popular works of reference"
Flanking references both melee attacks and taking more than one square.
require
verb
1. need for a particular purpose: "three patients required operations" synonyms: need, be in need of
The PDT post says "flanking specifically mentioning or alluding to something to melee attacks,"
How is that not saying flanking need for a particular purpose melee?
reference =/= require
/cevah
The PDT is saying essentially: we already told you how it works in the CRB.
Your argument in the past has always been that the gang up FAQ mention of "flanking specifically refers to melee attacks" didn't apply to flanking in general, even though the rest of the forums were telling you it absolutely applies. Its a statement of why gang up doesn't work with ranged - because flanking cannot be done from ranged.
The PDT in their statement I pointed you to, make a non-faq on the question "Can a Rogue gain Sneak Attack damage dice using a Ranged Longbow attack while in flanking position with an ally?" refering back to the gang up FAQ as to why there is no ranged flanking (even though that question has nothing to do with the gang up feat). They are saying the same thing everyone else who pointed to the gang up feat has been saying - ie, they are telling us all those who pointed to the gang up FAQ as concrete proof of no ranged flanking are right. There is no such thing as ranged flanking.
You are of course free to continuing being wrong.
Exception: a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.Flanking refers to creatures that take up more than one square.
Does flanking thus require a creature to take more than one square to get the bonus?
Refers =/= requires.
/cevah
See that IF there. Your argument has no basis. If they take up more than one space, else the flanking rules already cover things adequately. There is simply no comparison between this and "flanking refers to melee".
a : to have relation or connection : relate
b : to direct attention usually by clear and specific mention
Flanking refers specifically to melee attacks.
Flanking specifically is connected to melee attacks.Flanking, by specific mention, uses melee attacks.
Or if you prefer your Oxford definition.
Flanking needs or is in need of a melee attack.
See that IF there. Your argument has no basis. If they take up more than one space, else the flanking rules already cover things adequately. There is simply no comparison between this and "flanking refers to melee".Exception: a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.Flanking refers to creatures that take up more than one square.
Does flanking thus require a creature to take more than one square to get the bonus?
Refers =/= requires.
/cevah
Do you deny that there is a reference to occupying more than one square?
No?So why do the specifics matter to you when they don't for the reference to melee?
a : to have relation or connection : relate
b : to direct attention usually by clear and specific mention
I had to guess what word you were defining. It appears you are defining refer
Flanking refers specifically to melee attacks.
:
Flanking needs or is in need of a melee attack.
You use the definition of require where the CRB used the word reference.
Refers =/= requires.
You also are free to believe otherwise.
/cevah
Do you deny that there is a reference to occupying more than one square?
No?
So why do the specifics matter to you when they don't for the reference to melee?
Whatever you are trying to illustrate here then is entirely unclear to me. What does the flanking rules for larger sized creatures have to do with flanking requiring a melee attack?
You use the definition of require where the CRB used the word reference.
My mistake in pulling your second definition.
The ones I provided for refer still apply though. The PDT used the word "refers" in their explanation.
As for "...where the CRB used the word reference" The word "reference" does not appear in the entire combat chapter of the CRB, not under flanking or anywhere else in the chapter.
So no idea what you are actually trying to state with those comments.
Whatever you are trying to illustrate here then is entirely unclear to me. What does the flanking rules for larger sized creatures have to do with flanking requiring a melee attack?Do you deny that there is a reference to occupying more than one square?
No?
So why do the specifics matter to you when they don't for the reference to melee?
If you can use the reference to melee to mean require melee, I can use a reference to larger creatures as a requirement as well for the exact same reason.
You use the definition of require where the CRB used the word reference.
My mistake in pulling your second definition.
The ones I provided for refer still apply though. The PDT used the word "refers" in their explanation.
As for "...where the CRB used the word reference" The word "reference" does not appear in the entire combat chapter of the CRB, not under flanking or anywhere else in the chapter.
So no idea what you are actually trying to state with those comments.
I almost typed PDT and got confused and typed CRB. My bad.
/cevah
Anyone who takes the feats necessary to get Improved Snap Shot absolutely DESERVES to qualify for flanking. It's either half your feats or you're a monk, either way, you deserve to qualify as flanking.
Is it allowed as per rules, probably not. Unless you're a wizard, I'm sure they have a spell for that.
Either way, lots of ways outside of flanking to get sneak attack at range.
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.
Cevah, I am confused by your point here. You can just say that because it is referred to in a specific clause, that it is required for the entire subsection. There is context.
Yes, it is required to make a melee attack to get the +2 flanking bonus.
Yes, it is also required that a creature must take up more than 1 square in order for the exception text to apply to a creature.
Both of these are true when you consider them in the context of the flanking subsection.
Anyone who takes the feats necessary to get Improved Snap Shot absolutely DESERVES to qualify for flanking. It's either half your feats or you're a monk, either way, you deserve to qualify as flanking.
Is it allowed as per rules, probably not. Unless you're a wizard, I'm sure they have a spell for that.
Either way, lots of ways outside of flanking to get sneak attack at range.
The benefit is to make ranged AoOs, which is a much, much better benefit than +2 attack.
If you can use the reference to melee to mean require melee, I can use a reference to larger creatures as a requirement as well for the exact same reason.
Not when that reference starts with IF.
If this condition, then use these rules. Which means if not this condition, then don't use these rules. So no, trying to require flanking to only be available to creatures that take up more than one square is not a valid argument.
IF the rules said, when two large, or larger creatures are on opposite sides of an opponent <then all the flanking things get to happen>.
But what we actually find in the rules is a explanation of flanking, and then the added IF sentence to tell us how to deal with flanking when larger creatures are involved (instead of the typical medium or small creatures). So yes, if larger creatures are involved, absolutely refer to those additional rules. If they aren't, then they have no impact on flanking.
Anyone who takes the feats necessary to get Improved Snap Shot absolutely DESERVES to qualify for flanking. It's either half your feats or you're a monk, either way, you deserve to qualify as flanking.
Is it allowed as per rules, probably not. Unless you're a wizard, I'm sure they have a spell for that.
Either way, lots of ways outside of flanking to get sneak attack at range.
And that's fine to feel that way. I have no objection for people who want to house rule it in. But as to what the actual rules say, well the PDT made it pretty clear what they intended. You don't have to like it. You don't have to play it that way. But you ought to understand what they intended so that if you make changes you can let your players know, and you can be aware of how those changes might impact the game.
I don't care much either way, as I'm not an archer or a Rogue, so I have very little invested in any of this.
The only way I have ever seen this actually played was Improved Snap Shot threatens and therefore counts as a partner for melee flanking bonuses, but the archer did not receive any benefit from being one half of a flanking pair.
And that wasn't the DM being generous, that's literally how everyone at the table interpreted the rules.
I don't care much either way, as I'm not an archer or a Rogue, so I have very little invested in any of this.
The only way I have ever seen this actually played was Improved Snap Shot threatens and therefore counts as a partner for melee flanking bonuses, but the archer did not receive any benefit from being one half of a flanking pair.
And that wasn't the DM being generous, that's literally how everyone at the table interpreted the rules.
This is exactly how the PDT intended it to work - see above for my link to their comments on it.
If you can use the reference to melee to mean require melee, I can use a reference to larger creatures as a requirement as well for the exact same reason.Not when that reference starts with IF.
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.
But it is ok if it starts with "When" and has "if" in the statement?
I don't buy that.
Either both references mentioned mean required or both do not mean required. Pick one.
/cevah
|
|
Weight of Argument
It seems you are not treating evidence with an equal level of scrutiny. The arguments for flanking being melee are numerous and the criticism is that melee is merely strongly implied. This includes feats, the CRB only mentioning melee attacks and so on.
Yet the argument for being allowed to use ranged attacks is the absence of language explicitly forbidding it.
It is clear the preponderance of evidence is on one side of the argument.
Next issue.
The absence of a rule is not sufficient to allow you to do something. The rules are written as affirmative instructions. They tell you what you can do and what you can't. If the rules say nothing the default position is you can't do it.
When and if.
'When' does not make it conditional it means, in this case "during which time"
'If' is introducing a conditional clause
so the rules read like this
(title) Flanking (indicating what the next section is about)
[during which time that you are/in the event that you are] 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.
Sorry, the sentence is a little clunky simple words often lack simple synonyms. But, either of two definitions of when work here but nothing about either reading suggests that a non-melee attack can be used.
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.
This paragraph has a separate 'when' which is more likely to mean 'in the event that' because it refers to the state of 'being in doubt.' This also means that this paragraph cannot be read separately from the paragraph before, as you have claimed, because there has to be an event to which you are in doubt. The most reasonable reading would presume that event proceeded the current 'when' to which you are in doubt. Being there is only a single sentence before this one it follows that sentence two refers to sentence one.
Being anal about the first paragraph tells me a pair of long spear wielders cannot get a flanking bonus because they are not "on its opposite border or opposite corner". There is a space between them and the enemy because the long spear is a reach weapon and does not threaten adjacent.
When and If
Per the article "‘If’ or ‘When’? Which One to Use in a Sentence", when and if can sometimes be used interchangeably. The examples show that when can be replaced with if all the time, but if cannot be replaced with when all the time.
When is as conditional as if.
Since paragraph one talks about a bonus to the attack, and paragraph two talks about positioning, I think they are separate things under the topic of "Flanking" and not related to each other.
/cevah
|
|
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/if-or-when
'When' can also be much more certain than 'if'. This is why I took the time to attempt to interpret how they are being used in context and which usage was most in line what the rules say.
Remember you said, "Refers =/= requires." So I say, 'can =/= does' until a valid rationale is proposed.
Long spear problem
This error show exactly why you can't read parts or rules but you have to read them as a whole.
Your long spear analogy is a fundamental misreading of the rules. Here is the whole quote.
[qutoe]If your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
The character needs to threaten the enemy on the border. This is what happens when text is read out of context. One may come to erroneous conclusions.
Lets talk about context
Flanking is a sub-heading under combat modifiers.
Combat Modifiers
A number of factors and conditions can influence an attack roll. Many of these situations grant a bonus or penalty on attack rolls or to a defender’s Armor Class.
This recontextualizes flanking because you need to gain a bonus to attack to be flanking because flanking is tautologically defined by receiving a flanking bonus. Flanking is a combat modifier. Combat modifiers bonuses or penalties to attack or AC. Therefor flanking is a bonus to attack.
The table below bears out that there is no bonus for flanking at range. If you follow the logic above, there is no ranged flanking; because there is no bonus; because flanking is a bonus and your ranged attacks don't receive one.
Cevah I want to clarify your position.
Are you saying that:
1. You think the the intention is for melee only flanking, but the rule wasn't written well.
or
2. You think that the PDT fully intended for ranged flanking to be a thing going by what you have read in the core book, and the FAQ section
I ask because sometimes one person will understand what the intent is but not like the wording, and the other person will think they don't understand the intent.
This disagreement reminds me of this video I saw on facebook.
This guy asks his girlfriend, if you order a pizza, will you ask to have it cut into 8 or 12 pieces. The girl says 8 because I can't eat 12 pieces. The guy says "but the pizza is the same size." The girl says no, I can only eat 8 pieces, not 12.
I remember that video. I was LMAO.
The Gang Up FAQ is usually pointed to because it has the text "since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks". I agree that it does refer to it for a +2 bonus to the melee attack. But it does not actually state melee only. The feat even states: "Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent." Again no mention of an attack let alone a melee attack.
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.
That means the ranged weapon person can help someone who is in melee get a flank if they can threaten with their weapon, but they can not flank themselves. Which means no +2 and not sneak attack damage.
Cevah one thing you need to remember is that the rules are not written in legalese or like a technical manual. They are written in conversational English for the most part so if someone wants to be anal enough they can always find a way to say "it doesn't say ___ exactly".
As an example the cleric spells that can be converted to cure spells don't flat out say that a cleric can't use spell from a wizard spellist if he is multiclassed.
The rules don't say dead people can't take actions.
The rules don't say you can't take a 90 degree turn mid-jump.
Technically you can't see the sun by the rules in the book.
The list goes on and on about rules that don't work as intended if you want to use "but it doesn't exactly say that" as a way to suggest what a rule actually is.
PS: I did see where you said the rules should be for melee only so it seems that you agree with others about the way the rules should work, but you the wording isn't good enough for you.
PS: I don't know if English is your 2nd language or not but when someone ask "can you do A and B", and the response is "you can do A" the idea is that you can only do A. If the person intends for you to do both they will say that instead of calling out only one option out of the two you asked for.
Example:
Question: Can I target touch AC and normal AC with this ability?
Answer: The ability is meant to target normal AC. <---That means you can only target normal AC. If I wanted the ability to work with both normal and touch AC I would have included both, not one or the other.
@wraithstrike: I think it should be melee only. I did mention this, in bold, in my first post. I also play with melee only flanking.
As to legalistic reading, I am not going that far. Legalistic reading gives long spear wielders not flanking as mentioned in a recent post. I read paragraph one as a way to get an attack bonus, and paragraph two as a clarification (i.e. definition) of the flanking condition, which is important for Sneak Attack. I think the two paragraphs are separate things under the Flanking section. Others do not. I go by how I learned English growing up. I got a 95 percentile college bound English score on my SAT, so I think my grasp of the language is good. Others do not read it that way. That is the basis of the dispute, as far as I can see.
I also see the PDT response as: see the text under question to answer the question raised by the text. Circular reasoning does not answer the question. Especially since they could have had a short answer "Flanking is melee only". Just four words. Far less than their FAQ response's longer circular answer.
/cevah
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.
Paragraph 1 = Description of what flanking is
The rest of the flanking subsection regards additional clarification/information on how to determine flanking.
Even in the strictest reading of the rules, nonadjacent creatures get flanking.
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.
Using Lunge, Long Arms, Long Arm Bracers (works off of Alter Self) we can get a +15 range on our melee attacks. There's some debate about the size of a large whip on a large creature. It could be 20, 25 or 30 depending on how you think it should work. (double, double+5, or triple) Let's say it is 30, double the size just for this example.
All right, so now my Whip Master with an active Long Arms effect and an active Enlarge Person effect, uses his Long Arm Bracers (swift action) and Lunge (no action) to make melee attacks at a range of 45 feet.
On the otherside, my ally is using a standard reach weapon and otherwise all the same effects for a melee attack at a range of 35 feet.
A = Attacker
B = Target
C = Ally
A -> 8 squares -> B -> 6 squares -> C
A is attacking B. Do they get a flanking bonus?
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
Yes, when drawing a line between the two attacker's centers, the line passes through opposite borders. The opponent is flanked. That's a fairly loose positioning requirement when dealing at such large ranges. You could probably be in a different row even, especially because they are both large creatures.
A
A
_-> 8 squares -> B -> 6 squares -> C
___________________________________C
That would probably still get a flanking bonus. I don't feel like actually checking with a map and a straight edge or math right now.
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.Even in the strictest reading of the rules, nonadjacent creatures get flanking.
With a strict reading of the bolded text, nonadjacent creatures don't get flanking.
As to the rest, you disagree with my reasoning. Fine.
/cevah
Personally I think if the intent is clear enough that most people get it, that it's not worth debating over. Many rules can be nitpicked due to wording that could be more precise.
I think many times they go with "is this good enough for people to understand?".
If they think the answer is yes, they stop improving on the verbage.
In this case ""flanking specifically refers to melee attacks", which is what is in the FAQ, is the same as "flanking only refers to melee attacks".
Of course depending on context "specifically" and "only" aren't always going to be interchangeable, but most people can tell how a word is being used based on context so things like this are normally a non-issue.
|
|
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.
It is the threatening of the creature that has to be on the border.
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent threatened on its opposite border or opposite corner[/b].
See how you can remove the dependent clause from the sentence and then the sentence does not mean what you say it means. We can even move that clause around and write the sentence in the active voice.
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if another enemy character or creature threatens your opponent on its opposite border or opposite corner[/b].
The sentence still does not mean what you say it means.
As per the circular logic comment, I would call that internal consistency. My reading is consistent with the main section to which flanking belongs, all paragraphs in the flanking section, the PDT, and faqs. It does not require reading out of context or invoking the absence of a specific restriction.