|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I have a question about this. I'm going to try and make this setup easy, there's a medium sized bad guy (BG) with a medium sized good guy (GG) on opposite sides of it. If both GG have melee weapons out they both threaten and flank the BG. That part is easy and obvious.
But here are some other possible situations;
GG1 has and axe while GG2 has a shortbow, are they flanking the BG?
GG1 get's disarmed but GG2 still has his shortbow, are they still flanking?
Both GG1 and GG2 are disarmed, are they still flanking?
GG1 is adjacent to the BG but GG2 (with the shortbow) is 15' away but still directly opposite of GG1, are they still flanking?
These questions came up in our playtest because the section on Flanking and threatening on page 313 and 314 don't really answer these questions, or at least not clearly.
More Specifically, I'm wondering;
Can you threaten an area around you with with a ranged weapon (such as bow, crossbows, etc)? If so, to what distance?
Do unarmed attacks let you threaten an area around you automatically or do you need special training to threaten with unarmed attacks?
If unarmed attacks do let you threaten an area, do you need to "ready to make unarmed attacks" (as per the rule on page 314) to actually threaten with an unarmed attack?
If you're holding an object in one hand and unarmed attacks let you threaten, do you threaten with only one hand free?
What if you're holding an object that requires two hands to hold and unarmed attacks let you threaten an area? Can you still threaten with unarmed attacks?
Thanks for the help!
Good questions here. The book does not well define threatening.
I would assume that you DO threaten with unarmed attacks, since everyone is proficient in them. Theoretically, you could threaten with unarmed attacks even if both your hands are full, since unarmed attacks don't necessarily need to be with your fists.
I would assume that you do NOT threaten with ranged attacks, although there's no reason to assume so other than carry-over from PF1. Maybe you do threaten, but only within 5 feet, since that is your normal reach? This will need to be clarified in the rulebook.
|
|
Ranged weapons don't threaten, just reach weapons (which they discuss in the Flanking section).
Actually, it doesn't. At least not that I could find. If you have a page # to reference that would be great. But from what I can tell, it just says you have to have a "weapon" to threaten. It doesn't specify melee or ranged.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would assume that you DO threaten with unarmed attacks, since everyone is proficient in them.
Wizards are untrained in unarmed attacks.
According to the Rules Update doc, all classes are trained in Unarmed Attacks.
I would assume that you DO threaten with unarmed attacks, since everyone is proficient in them.Wizards are untrained in unarmed attacks.
No, that's unarmored defense. A ctrl-F on "unarm" only finds that reference, and there are no modifications to the Wizard class section for their proficiencies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to pages 178 and 180, the fist is a simple weapon and is treated as such for proficiency purposes. Only a few character classes (such as the wizard) count as untrained with fists.
But in any case, I could find nothing indicating that you had to be trained with a weapon to threaten with it -- so, even though a wizard is unlikely to hit or do much damage with his fists, it appears that he can still threaten foes with them.
|
|
No, that's unarmored defense. A ctrl-F on "unarm" only finds that reference, and there are no modifications to the Wizard class section for their proficiencies.According to the Rules Update doc, all classes are trained in Unarmed Attacks.
I would assume that you DO threaten with unarmed attacks, since everyone is proficient in them.Wizards are untrained in unarmed attacks.
Doh! You're right. My bad.
I am fairly sure that "ready to make an unarmed attack" just indicates having a free hand you can strike with, not a specifically readied action.
Not to mention that it is a trivial effort to take one hand off your bow and punch someone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, thus far flanking and getting the benefits of flanking seems to work rather well for ranged weapons. After all threatening someone with a loaded weapon really is not that different from threatening them with a knife right?
Okay, so let's say you can threaten someone with a ranged weapon.
1) What if you don't have an arrow or bolt loaded into your ranged weapon? Do you still threaten?2) And again, per my original series of questions, at what range do you threaten? Does that mean you can threaten someone just by being present on the battlefield? Even if 300 feet away from the enemy?
These rules need to be better written so that these kinds of questions don't need to be asked.
|
To be fair, thus far flanking and getting the benefits of flanking seems to work rather well for ranged weapons. After all threatening someone with a loaded weapon really is not that different from threatening them with a knife right?Okay, so let's say you can threaten someone with a ranged weapon.
1) What if you don't have an arrow or bolt loaded into your ranged weapon? Do you still threaten?2) And again, per my original series of questions, at what range do you threaten? Does that mean you can threaten someone just by being present on the battlefield? Even if 300 feet away from the enemy?
These rules need to be better written so that these kinds of questions don't need to be asked.
1.For the bow it doesn't matter all that much since you will have a hand free for that unarmed strike, I think the text said something about a loaded weapon.
2.I still assume melee based on the picture that illustrates flanking, but they likely just forgot to add it to the text.
And yeah I agree, the rules need to be a lot clearer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To start - Gods how I hate the Play test rule book, the wording is loose and all over the shop.
For me I’m looking at this as a PLAYTEST so my group is doing its best to just play the rules as written (RAW), later when the first official print comes out then we can move onto RAI (Rules as Intended).
If the passage is shown to be ambiguous that’s one of the core drives of a playtest, to tighten up the rules of play and make it clear through Errata followed by a finished game copy. If a rule or mechanic turns out to be ambiguous / unworkable or unbalanced it will come out in testing.
End of the day your GM will make a call then just move on, we will see who was right at the end of the playtest once the rules are updated.
FLANKING (p313-314)
P313 – “To flank a foe, you and your ally must be on opposites sides or opposite corners of the creature.” – There is No mention of a max distance 5ft, 10ft or 100ft in this passage. So you draw a line and if it passes through “either opposite sides or opposite corners of the enemy’s space.”, you are Flanking.
p314 – Threatening – “this means you both must be wielding weapons or ready to make unarmed attacks and not under any effects that prevent you from making attacks”. That’s it, there is no other definition anywhere else in the rules, “both must be wielding weapons or ready to make unarmed attacks”. Wielding weapons, with NO clarification as to Type of weapon so General wins here as there is NO Specific to overrule it any were else in the book. Note you don’t have to Trained just “wielding”.
p178 (onwards) – Weapons – The types mentioned are: “IMPROVISED” (Treat it as a simple weapon), “SIMPLE MELEE”, “MARTIAL MELEE”, “SIMPLE RANGED”, “MARTIAL RANGED”, “UNCOMMON SIMPLE MELEE”, “UNCOMMON MARTIAL MELEE”, “UNCOMMON EXOTIC MELEE”, and “UNCOMMON MARTIAL RANGED”, with hands and feet counted as Simple weapons.
p314 – “If you have reach” – This is an example of Specific over General, as the passage specifies additional info about REACH weapons.
Flat-footed
P322 – “You’re unable to focus your full attention on defense. You take a –2 circumstance penalty to AC.” The criteria for Flat-Footed is “unable to focus your full attention on defense”, this condition can come from dozens of circumstances (feats etc.) within the rule book. For Flanking it is due to your attention being split between what’s in front of you and what’s behind you (drawing the line), and again nothing here excludes Range.
It’s interesting to note, Flat-footed as defined above, a third person attacking is making it even harder to defend, and they should also benefit from the condition. Again one for Paizo to clarify.
P119 – ROGUE ONLY - "Sneak Attack", is a red herring as the wording does not say one way or the other if Ranged Flank is possible. Only IF a Rogue gains flanking they may apply there Sneak damage. And as noted above there are a lot of Feats and circumstances that could create the Flat-footed condition besides Flanking. Interesting note - there is no max range penalty mentioned as in PF1.
Sorry for the length of this post its just this one topic has been bugging me some and I needed to vent a bit.
As to DarkKnight27 original post. – My thoughts:
GG1 has and axe while GG2 has a shortbow, are they flanking the BG? - YES
GG1 get's disarmed but GG2 still has his shortbow, are they still flanking? – YES – (GG1 still has hands)
Both GG1 and GG2 are disarmed, are they still flanking? – MAYBE (with only hands are they within their REACH?)
GG1 is adjacent to the BG but GG2 (with the shortbow) is 15' away but still directly opposite of GG1, are they still flanking? - YES
Cheers
|
|
End of the day your GM will make a call then just move on, we will see who was right at the end of the playtest once the rules are updated.
FLANKING (p313-314)
P313 – “To flank a foe, you and your ally must be on opposites sides or opposite corners of the creature.” – There is No mention of a max distance 5ft, 10ft or 100ft in this passage. So you draw a line and if it passes through “either opposite sides or opposite corners of the enemy’s space.”, you are Flanking.p314 – Threatening – “this means you both must be wielding weapons or ready to make unarmed attacks and not under any effects that prevent you from making attacks”. That’s it, there is no other definition anywhere else in the rules, “both must be wielding weapons or ready to make unarmed attacks”. Wielding weapons, with NO clarification as to Type of weapon so General wins here as there is NO Specific to overrule it any were else in the book. Note you don’t have to Trained just “wielding”.
p178 (onwards) – Weapons – The types mentioned are: “IMPROVISED” (Treat it as a simple weapon), “SIMPLE MELEE”, “MARTIAL MELEE”, “SIMPLE RANGED”, “MARTIAL RANGED”, “UNCOMMON SIMPLE MELEE”, “UNCOMMON MARTIAL MELEE”, “UNCOMMON EXOTIC MELEE”, and “UNCOMMON MARTIAL RANGED”, with hands and feet counted as Simple weapons.
p314 – “If you have reach” – This is an example of Specific over General, as the passage specifies additional info about REACH weapons....
For starters, I am the GM and I'm trying my hardest to go into this Playtest and run it just based off the rules as written. Second, like you pointed out the rule for "threatening", which is a prerequisite to flank someone, heavily implies that you have to be using a melee weapon because they talk about unarmed attacks and reach but they never specifically call out range (ranged weapons don't have reach, they have range) and as someone else pointed out, even if you have a bow or crossbow in hand you can still always make an unarmed attack such as a punk or kick or even headbut.
So lets go to an absolutely silly scenario, you have one archer on the battlefield 200 feet away from 5 different BG. This archer has 5 friends that are all engaged in melee with a different BG and because of maneuvering and such, you can now draw a line between the center of the archer's square and the center of each allies square and it passes through the opposite sides of each BG square. If we're saying that ranged weapons can threaten out to their maximum range (which is NOT listed anywhere I can find) then one character can now threaten 5 other characters and not be threatened themself.
This doesn't seem right to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, being able to "flank" with a ranged weapon isn't completely crazy. If your buddy is up in someone's face and you are standing directly behind them, you've got a pretty good shot. it is effectively the inverse of screening.
I'm not saying it is intended to be happening by paizo, and in fact from the flanking example info-graph on page 313 we pretty much know it isn't since Seoni and Merisiel aren't flanking together. But it would make a certain amount of sense if it did.
My gut also says flanking should make the target flat-footed to everyone but that might cheapen effects like grappling and tripping that can inflict flat-footed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"threatening", which is a prerequisite to flank someone, heavily implies
I don't see that it "Heavily implies", I see a sentence in a poorly worded rule book that is clear (but possible wrong). IF they had used the word "Melee" just before the word "Weapon" then this thread would not be needed. However they did not, so as it stands the RAW to my read of the passage does not "heavily imply" but clearly reads all weapons have the capacity to flank given the PC makes the other prerequisites (opposite squares etc).
Current passage
"Threatening – this means you both must be wielding weapons or ready to make unarmed attacks"
How the change would read.
"Threatening – this means you both must be wielding MELEE weapons or ready to make unarmed attacks"
It could be as simple as a missing word or Type 'o'
you have one archer on the battlefield 200 feet away from 5 different BG. This archer has 5 friends that are all engaged in melee with a different BG and because of maneuvering and such, you can now draw a line between the center of the archer's square and the center of each allies square and it passes through the opposite sides of each BG square. If we're saying that ranged weapons can threaten out to their maximum range (which is NOT listed anywhere I can find) then one character can now threaten 5 other characters
Max range - P179 - For example, a shortbow takes no penalty against a target up to 60 feet away, a –2 penalty against a target beyond 60 feet but up to 120 feet away, and a –4 penalty against a target beyond 120 feet but up to 180 feet away, and so on. Attacks that would take a penalty greater than –10 due to range are impossible.
I still maintain that a Range weapon can be considered a Threat and would split a creatures attention. Consider a standoff between a number of police with guns and a bad guy with a gun. To me the bad guy would feel "threatened” and be “flanked” by the police as they split his attention and moved to surround him from opposite sides.
You asked for other points of view or perhaps clarity - I'm just saying how I read that particular passage. In the end we will all get to read an Errata or the 2nd ed of the core rule book and it will become clear. (I hope)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a professional editor and a gamer who likes to keep rules text as simple as possible, I'd suggest the term "threatening" be removed entirely as a game condition, as the transition to a new rules set is just causing folks to be confused by it much too easily. It's mainly an artifact from the prior edition and D&D 3.x before it. Flanking can be more clearly defined without it. You and an ally are opposite one another with a for between you (with the usual "draw a line" explanation) and are capable of a melee Strike against it. That's it.
I'm sure perhaps there are other situations where "threatened" may come into play but I'd bet they could also be reworded.
I would also like for flanking to appy flatfooted to the create, end of Story. The logic of flatfooted only to the flanking parties does not mesh with the rest of the conditions and makes very limited sense.
I agree under the current definition for Flat-footed on P322 – “You’re unable to focus your full attention on defence.", is so weak I want to cry, so once they have become Flat-footed the condition should logically be extended to benefit all allies in the combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a professional editor and a gamer who likes to keep rules text as simple as it possibly can, I'd suggest removing the term "threatening" be removed entirely as a game condition, as the transition to a new rules set is just causing folks to be confused by it much too easily. It's mainly an artifact from the prior edition and D&D 3.x before it. Flanking can be more clearly defined without it. You and an ally are opposite one another with a for between you (with the usual "draw a line" explanation) and are capable of a melee Strike against it. That's it.
I'm sure perhaps there are other situations where "threatened" may come into play but I'd bet they could also be reworded.
I agree that "threaten" should cease to be a technical term. It looks like it only comes up in two other places in the playtest rulebook, the Gang Up rogue feat and most animal companions' Work Together options. "Could Strike" should suffice for the A/Cs and "Could make a melee Strike" for Gang Up.
|
|
Max range - P179 - For example, a shortbow takes no penalty against a target up to 60 feet away, a –2 penalty against a target beyond 60 feet but up to 120 feet away, and a –4 penalty against a target beyond 120 feet but up to 180 feet away, and so on. Attacks that would take a penalty greater than –10 due to range are impossible.
I still maintain that a Range weapon can be considered a Threat and would split a creatures attention.
While it's true that the person would have a weapon in hand, if they were 60 feet away they are outside of their reach. So where in the rules for threatening does it say you can still threaten with range? And if you can threaten at range with a ranged weapon, I ask again, out to what range?
And again, let's keep this to a discussion of the rules in game, real world examples don't really mean anything in a game of fiction and fantasy.
I'd suggest the term "threatening" be removed entirely as a game condition,
+1 from me
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And again, let's keep this to a discussion of the rules in game, real world examples don't really mean anything in a game of fiction and fantasy.
Sure how about this -
Consider an encounter between 4 Players with bows attacking a goblin NPC with a bow. The players get the initiative and move to surround the goblin moving 40ft distance the goblin at the centre. To me the goblin would feel "threatened” and be “flanked” by the players as they have split his attention and now moved to surround him from opposite sides.
Better?
, if they were 60 feet away they are outside of their reach. So where in the rules for threatening does it say you can still threaten with range? And if you can threaten at range with a ranged weapon, I ask again, out to what range?
The rules currently say - "Threatening – this means you both must be wielding weapons" no mention of the word REACH just wielding a weapon. The term "threaten" is predicated on the attackers ability to inflict damage not the defenders ability to strike back.
As to Range I'm just pointing you at the page and passage as you asked - I never said I agree with the mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've posted about this in the Errata thread a while back.
RAW you do flank with bows, but that just seems... weird.
I mean, if you can "threaten" with ranged, why even bother with the extra sentences for Reach. "wield a weapon" should have been sufficient to cover them as well.
So, I expect that's just a F up and they meant only melee by RAI.
They definitely didn't intend it; check out the little example grid picture they have.
|
|
, if they were 60 feet away they are outside of their reach. So where in the rules for threatening does it say you can still threaten with range? And if you can threaten at range with a ranged weapon, I ask again, out to what range?The rules currently say - "Threatening – this means you both must be wielding weapons" no mention of the word REACH just wielding a weapon. The term "threaten" is predicated on the attackers ability to inflict damage not the defenders ability to strike back.
As to Range I'm just pointing you at the page and passage as you asked - I never said I agree with the mechanic.
Here, lets look at the full rule, not just the first few words;
Both you and the ally have to be THREATENING that enemy: this means you both must be wielding weapons or ready to make unarmed attacks and not under any effects that prevent you from making attacks. If you have reach, you determine whether you are flanking creatures out to the distance of your reach because you threaten all of those squares.
So as you can see the rule clearly mentions reach. What it doesn't mention in at all is range. As near as I can tell ranged weapons don't have reach and you don't determine your reach based off your range.
So, if you have found something I haven't, please point out where in the rules it says out to what RANGE you threaten an enemy. Also, it has nothing to do with your "ability to inflict damage". Or are you saying that a creature you can't bypass the damage reduction of you can't threaten? If so, where are the rules to back up that point of view?
|
|
And again, let's keep this to a discussion of the rules in game, real world examples don't really mean anything in a game of fiction and fantasy.Sure how about this -
Consider an encounter between 4 Players with bows attacking a goblin NPC with a bow. The players get the initiative and move to surround the goblin moving 40ft distance the goblin at the centre. To me the goblin would feel "threatened” and be “flanked” by the players as they have split his attention and now moved to surround him from opposite sides.
Better?
What page talks about the rules for feeling? I don't see any reference to the emotional state of a creature coming into play here based on the rule I posted above (which seems to be the only rule written for "threatening") and I don't see any reference to "feeling".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've posted about this in the Errata thread a while back.
RAW you do flank with bows, but that just seems... weird.
I mean, if you can "threaten" with ranged, why even bother with the extra sentences for Reach. "wield a weapon" should have been sufficient to cover them as well.
So, I expect that's just a F up and they meant only melee by RAI.
To me, the rules for flanking and threatening do seem to heavily imply that it's melee only, but the lack of calling that out opens this up. Paizo really needs to come out and say if it's melee only or if you can use a ranged weapon, out to what range can you threaten and how do those rules work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What page talks about the rules for feeling? I don't see any reference to the emotional state of a creature coming into play here based on the rule I posted above (which seems to be the only rule written for "threatening") and I don't see any reference to "feeling".
You got me there its nowhere in the book, but then again nowhere in the book is there a single mention that you can not flank with a Range Weapon
So as you can see the rule clearly mentions reach. What it doesn't mention in at all is range. As near as I can tell ranged weapons don't have reach and you don't determine your reach based off your range.
So, if you have found something I haven't, please point out where in the rules it says out to what RANGE you threaten an enemy. Also, it has nothing to do with your "ability to inflict damage". Or are you saying that a creature you can't bypass the damage reduction of you can't threaten? If so, where are the rules to back up that point of view?
The rules say a Weapon not a Melee Weapon just a Weapon, as to "Finding something", the text is there and in plane English I think the idea is for you to find some text or passage where a Range Weapon is excluded or deamed not a weapon rather to the point.
As to "out to what RANGE" - good question like many other parts of the rules there is no mention. In point of fact the bit i pointed you towards about range increments is kind of buried don't you think?
Personal options like "Feelings", "point of view"'s or "heavily imply" are bias. For this topic it all comes down to "wielding a weapon", the rules are a hot mess but we are trying to play the game by the rules as they are written if you start changing them to suit personal tastes there can be no baseline to improve them. I'm hopeful of an errata mention but were 2 for 0 right now so I think we are going to have to cool our jets till they get around to reading the posts. :)
|
|
The rules for threatening, which is the only thing that matters for flank (apart from obvious positioning) is:
wielding a weapon
can attack target
The second sentence of "threatening" seems to disagree with this since it says you threaten out to your reach. Certain melee weapons will extend your reach, but ranged weapons do not.
It's like part of the rule is missing.
As for the example, the could have easily put a bow in someone's hand to help illustrate how someone with a ranged weapon could threaten. But between the wording of the rule and the example, it's like they didn't think through the whole "threatening with a ranged weapon" part of this rule and it's only a half step in that direction with no clear rules one how it works.
After all these years of PF1e, the PF2e design team can't even write a flanking rule that is clear and makes sense to one and all?
This is just one more reason that I fear PF2e is shaping up to be a huge fiasco.
|
|
the reach part is speaking about reach weapons. "when wielding a reach weapon blahblahblah" it's not "expanding" on the first part.
as for the example:
i already agree that the RAI isn't to threaten with ranged weapons, but the strict RAW doesn't make a distinction. That's why i've posted this on the errata thread like 2 weeks ago but it went unoticed there.
But it is expanding on the first part. Not all monsters, or characters for that matter, wild weapons. Some monsters and characters have ZERO reach, others have a reach out to 10 feet or more.
Clearly the rules need to be better written and more clearly defined.
Hey, now that most PCs and most monsters can't even make AoOs anymore, why would anybody be distracted when they're flanked?
After all, that rogue behind can't even attack me for at least another 6 seconds. The Barbarian in front of me will go first so I'll watch him and ignore the rogue, then after the barbarian goes I will give the rogue my full attention. In between, I can take my turn, cast spells, shoot ranged weapons, drink a potion with my eyes closed, pick my nose, and they can't even hit me.
So why should I lose AC from being flanked now?
Unless one of them is a fighter, in which case, I need to worry about him the whole round so I would be distracted on the other guy's round but not on the fighter's round.
Makes sense to me.
(Of course that's now how it's written or how it's intended to work, but hey, without AoO, flanking doesn't seem at all scary anymore).
|
|
Hey, now that most PCs and most monsters can't even make AoOs anymore, why would anybody be distracted when they're flanked?
After all, that rogue behind can't even attack me for at least another 6 seconds. The Barbarian in front of me will go first so I'll watch him and ignore the rogue, then after the barbarian goes I will give the rogue my full attention. In between, I can take my turn, cast spells, shoot ranged weapons, drink a potion with my eyes closed, pick my nose, and they can't even hit me.
So why should I lose AC from being flanked now?
Unless one of them is a fighter, in which case, I need to worry about him the whole round so I would be distracted on the other guy's round but not on the fighter's round.
Makes sense to me.
(Of course that's now how it's written or how it's intended to work, but hey, without AoO, flanking doesn't seem at all scary anymore).
This is another really good point. You used to threaten because you were capable of making an attack against the target being threatened if they weren't careful. Now, that's not a thing really.
You could attack someone from behind with a readied action while they're distracted. It's not like "AoO against enemy distracted by flanking" was ever a standard ability.
|
|
Shooting a ranged weapon or ranged attack could provoke an AoO.
Casting a spell of any kind (unless quickened) could provoke an AoO.
Using a spell like ability could provoke an AoO.
Using a spell completion item could provoke an AoO.
While none of these are guaranteed to cause an AoO, they could because a person standing next to you threatens you. They threaten you because they have many ways and options to attack you if you let your guard down.
That simply does not exist in PF2E.