Flanking with ranged weapons


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

rabbedrabit wrote:

i have this question also.

here is the situation,

1 i have an allie on on the opposite side of the target weilding a melee weapon and within range of that target.
2 i have a melee weapon in hand. in this case a mace. and on the opposite side of the target from my allie. there for full filling the requirments of flanking.
3 im a rogue with magical trickster. lets me sneak attack with spells that have a strike effect and deals damage.
4 on my turn i cast a ranged strike spell. (yes im open to oppertunity attacks)

the question is am i still flanking and get sneak attack on the spell attack?

Technically, yes, you would get sneak attack.

Here are the conditions for the creature to be considered Flat-footed to you.

Flanking:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 476
When you and an ally are flanking a foe, it has a harder time defending against you. A creature is flat-footed (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to creatures that are flanking it.

To flank a foe, you and your ally must be on opposites sides or corners of the creature. A line drawn between the center of your space and the center of your ally’s space must pass through opposite sides or opposite corners of the foe’s space. Additionally, both you and the ally have to be able to act, must be wielding melee weapons or able to make an unarmed attack, can’t be under any effects that prevent you from attacking, and must have the enemy within reach. If you are wielding a reach weapon, you use your reach with that weapon for this purpose.

Here are the requirements to get Sneak Attack.

Sneak Attack:

When your enemy can’t properly defend itself, you take advantage to deal extra damage. If you Strike a creature that has the flat-footed condition (page 620) with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, or a ranged weapon attack, you deal an extra 1d6 precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse

Based on your scenario, you satisfy the requisite conditions for both Flanking (thus making the creature flat-footed to you) and Sneak Attack (using a Strike against a flat-footed creature).


N N 959 wrote:
rabbedrabit wrote:

i have this question also.

here is the situation,

1 i have an allie on on the opposite side of the target weilding a melee weapon and within range of that target.
2 i have a melee weapon in hand. in this case a mace. and on the opposite side of the target from my allie. there for full filling the requirments of flanking.
3 im a rogue with magical trickster. lets me sneak attack with spells that have a strike effect and deals damage.
4 on my turn i cast a ranged strike spell. (yes im open to oppertunity attacks)

the question is am i still flanking and get sneak attack on the spell attack?

Technically, yes, you would get sneak attack.

Here are the conditions for the creature to be considered Flat-footed to you.

** spoiler omitted **

Here are the requirements to get Sneak Attack.

** spoiler omitted **...

Show me anywhere in the Flanking rules that mention Ranged Attacks/Weapons...

The Flanking section mentions Melee Attacks/Weapons specifically and exclusively... (look it up CRB pg 476)

Where is the Specific allowance for Ranged Flank?

~

As to the "we want to follow the 'any body part' rule, but ignore the statistics/'weapon bar' for the unarmed attack...

You either need to accept the rule and all the limitations... meaning 'Kick' requires 1 hand... or we are no longer having a rules discussion...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a little lost as to why it matters at all what weapon is used to attack, as long as the flanking position requirements are met. Is a bow somehow overpowered compared to any other weapon?

Sczarni

I explained this recently to a group new to PF2, and it made sense to them.

It's not that you're flanking with a longbow.

It's that the target is distracted enough by the two creatures flanking it, who are each able to attack with unarmed strikes, that causes them to be flat-footed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tempest_Knight wrote:

Show me anywhere in the Flanking rules that mention Ranged Attacks/Weapons...

The Flanking section mentions Melee Attacks/Weapons specifically and exclusively... (look it up CRB pg 476)

Where is the Specific allowance for Ranged Flank?

~

As to the "we want to follow the 'any body part' rule, but ignore the statistics/'weapon bar' for the unarmed attack...

You either need to accept the rule and all the limitations... meaning 'Kick' requires 1 hand... or we are no longer having a rules discussion...

I'll do you one better: Show me anywhere in the flanking rules that mention's Flanking only applying to melee attacks.

CRB PG. 476 "Flanking" wrote:


When you and an ally are flanking a foe, it has a harder
time defending against you. A creature is flat-footed
(taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to creatures that
are flanking it.
To flank a foe, you and your ally must be on opposites
sides or corners of the creature. A line drawn between
the center of your space and the center of your ally’s
space must pass through opposite sides or opposite
corners of the foe’s space. Additionally, both you and
the ally have to be able to act, must be wielding melee
weapons or able to make an unarmed attack, can’t be
under any effects that prevent you from attacking, and
must have the enemy within reach. If you are wielding
a reach weapon, you use your reach with that weapon
for this purpose.

No part of this section mentions foes only being flanked vs. melee attacks. It only states that you must either be wielding a melee weapon or be capable of making an unarmed attack. If you meet those requirements the foe is Flanked to you with all the penalties therein.

As to the "Hand's" argument, you can punch while wielding a bow. As far as I can tell, you are never counted as NOT having a free hand while wielding a bow, even when you shoot it.

CRB PG. 279-280 "Hands" wrote:


Some weapons require one hand to wield, and others
require two. A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for
its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry
in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using
a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow. This means
you can do things with your free hand while holding the
bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must
be free when you shoot. To properly wield a 1+ weapon,
you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free.

You can't even make the argument that your second hand isn't free when you shoot: The rule simply states that your second hand Must be free when you shoot.

So either way you cut it, you qualify for flanking while wielding a Longbow, even while you shoot it, as you can make a punch. The only ranged weapon's you would not qualify as Flanking with, assuming you don't allow a character to kick which is fair enough, is the Crossbow and Heavy Crossbow. Unless you happen to be a character with secondary unarmed attacks, like the Lizardfolk with their Tail Whip or anything that get's a Bite like the Dhampir or Catfolk.

Or do those characters require a Hand free to make their melee attacks?


Either way, what's the difference between the following scenarios?

a) I'm in flanking position and I shoot with a short bow

b) I'm in flanking position and I swing a short sword

Both do 1d6, what's the big deal? Why nit pick players who use a bow? I just don't understand why it's even a consideration.


mrspaghetti wrote:

Either way, what's the difference between the following scenarios?

a) I'm in flanking position and I shoot with a short bow

b) I'm in flanking position and I swing a short sword

Both do 1d6, what's the big deal? Why nit pick players who use a bow? I just don't understand why it's even a consideration.

It's not about the damage, it's about the chance to hit. Flanking gives the creature a -2 to AC, which is actually pretty big in PF2.

It's important to know whether or not the archer has a 10% increased chance to hit & crit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:

Either way, what's the difference between the following scenarios?

a) I'm in flanking position and I shoot with a short bow

b) I'm in flanking position and I swing a short sword

Both do 1d6, what's the big deal? Why nit pick players who use a bow? I just don't understand why it's even a consideration.

It's not about the damage, it's about the chance to hit. Flanking gives the creature a -2 to AC, which is actually pretty big in PF2.

It's important to know whether or not the archer has a 10% increased chance to hit & crit.

I get that, I just don't see why people are worried about whether an archer has it vs. whether a guy with a sword has it. They should both have it.


mrspaghetti wrote:
Claxon wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:

Either way, what's the difference between the following scenarios?

a) I'm in flanking position and I shoot with a short bow

b) I'm in flanking position and I swing a short sword

Both do 1d6, what's the big deal? Why nit pick players who use a bow? I just don't understand why it's even a consideration.

It's not about the damage, it's about the chance to hit. Flanking gives the creature a -2 to AC, which is actually pretty big in PF2.

It's important to know whether or not the archer has a 10% increased chance to hit & crit.

I get that, I just don't see why people are worried about whether an archer has it vs. whether a guy with a sword has it. They should both have it.

Probably legacy from PF1. In this edition I'm not worried about it like I would have been in PF1, but it is a significant advantage if they can get flanking at range.

Of course, to get it they have to be in range to threaten, which would mean using either one handed ranged weapons and possible a gnome flickmace or they would have to be within 5ft to make kicks. Which would negate the usual benefit of ranged weapons...being at range.


You quoted where the rules state that you don't have a hand free when firing a bow...

CRB pg. 279-280 "Hands" wrote:

You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry

in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using
a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow.

Notice, you can hold with 1 hand, but attack with 2 hands.

~

So, a discussion on melee combat must always apply to ranged combat?

So, I must reload my sword? You need the reload in ranged combat, so you must in melee, right?

Or, Melee and Ranged combat are different...

If a rules section only refers to one type of combat, it only applies to one type of combat.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Unarmed Strikes don't take up a hand.

It doesn't matter if you're a human reloading a bow or a gnome reloading their spring-injected sword-syringe.

You can still headbutt, shoulder slam, kick, what-have-you. All that matters is you are able to make an unarmed attack within reach.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tempest_Knight wrote:

You quoted where the rules state that you don't have a hand free when firing a bow...

CRB pg. 279-280 "Hands" wrote:

You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry

in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using
a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow.

Notice, you can hold with 1 hand, but attack with 2 hands.

~

So, a discussion on melee combat must always apply to ranged combat?

So, I must reload my sword? You need the reload in ranged combat, so you must in melee, right?

Or, Melee and Ranged combat are different...

If a rules section only refers to one type of combat, it only applies to one type of combat.

Nice cherry pick. Yes, a bow requires a second hand to fire, but that hand is never taken up by the bow. There is no point in time where a bow counts as a 2 hand weapon, because it is not worth the players time to track the split second that, "retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow," takes. Even if you split hairs and say that the character is incapable of punching during that action, as soon as the arrow is "loosed", the hand is again free while the arrow flies, no matter how short a time that is, and the character is once again capable of punching.

Flanking never exclusively indicates that it only applies to melee combat. It's prerequisites are melee based, sure, but that is the main difference between flanking in PF2 and flanking from PF1.

In PF 1 flanking was a specific bonus that You got, specifically to a melee attack, when a creature was threatened by another creature on it's opposite side.

If PF 2 instead, flanking applies Flat Footed, which is a condition that effects their AC whenever similar requirements are met. That condition makes NO differentiation between melee attacks, spell attack rolls, ranged attack rolls or what have you. Flat-Footed does have a provision for differentiation between attack types based on the effect that inflicts Flat-Footed, though Flanking has no such proviso. If your enemy qualifies to be "flanked", it is flat footed.

CRB PG. 620 "Flat-Footed" wrote:

Flat-Footed

You’re distracted or otherwise unable to focus your full
attention on defense. You take a –2 circumstance penalty
to AC. Some effects give you the flat-footed condition only
to certain creatures or against certain attacks. Others—
especially conditions—can make you universally flatfooted
against everything. If a rule doesn’t specify that the
condition applies only to certain circumstances, it applies
to all of them; for example, many effects simply say “The
target is flat-footed.”
CRB PG. 476 "Flanking" wrote:

A creature is flat-footed

(taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to creatures that
are flanking it.

Flanking makes No distinction between melee and ranged attacks benefitting from Flat-Footed. So if you qualify to Flank, and have a ranged attack that you wish to make, then you get the benefits from Flanking on that Ranged attack.


beowulf99 wrote:

Flanking never exclusively indicates that it only applies to melee combat. It's prerequisites are melee based, sure, but that is the main difference between flanking in PF2 and flanking from PF1.

In PF 1 flanking was a specific bonus that You got, specifically to a melee attack, when a creature was threatened by another creature on it's opposite side.

If PF 2 instead, flanking applies Flat Footed, which is a condition that effects their AC whenever similar requirements are met. That condition makes NO differentiation between melee attacks, spell attack rolls, ranged attack rolls or what have you. Flat-Footed does have a provision for differentiation between attack types based on the effect that inflicts Flat-Footed, though Flanking has no such proviso. If your enemy qualifies to be "flanked", it is flat footed.

If PF1, flanking did two things: 1) attack bonus to melee, 2) sneak attack bonus.

A case to illustrate this was to attack adjacent with a dagger. If I melee attack, I got an attack bonus, but if I threw it, I did not. It did not change my position, nor my ability to threaten. However, it was generally considered that I did not get sneak attack when thrown.

With the rules in this thread, it seems that I can now get both the attack bonus (i.e. the AC penalty) and the sneak attack no matter if I melee with a dagger or throw it.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:

Flanking never exclusively indicates that it only applies to melee combat. It's prerequisites are melee based, sure, but that is the main difference between flanking in PF2 and flanking from PF1.

In PF 1 flanking was a specific bonus that You got, specifically to a melee attack, when a creature was threatened by another creature on it's opposite side.

If PF 2 instead, flanking applies Flat Footed, which is a condition that effects their AC whenever similar requirements are met. That condition makes NO differentiation between melee attacks, spell attack rolls, ranged attack rolls or what have you. Flat-Footed does have a provision for differentiation between attack types based on the effect that inflicts Flat-Footed, though Flanking has no such proviso. If your enemy qualifies to be "flanked", it is flat footed.

If PF1, flanking did two things: 1) attack bonus to melee, 2) sneak attack bonus.

A case to illustrate this was to attack adjacent with a dagger. If I melee attack, I got an attack bonus, but if I threw it, I did not. It did not change my position, nor my ability to threaten. However, it was generally considered that I did not get sneak attack when thrown.

With the rules in this thread, it seems that I can now get both the attack bonus (i.e. the AC penalty) and the sneak attack no matter if I melee with a dagger or throw it.

/cevah

It's been a while since I really looked at PF1 rules, but I do recall that being the case. In PF2, as far as I can tell, a rogue gets Sneak Attack damage against any flat-footed creature with qualifying weapons. There are plenty of abilities that inflict flat-footed, many of them available to rogues, but the most universally accessible is Flanking.

So yeah, feel free to throw your dagger at your flanked opponent. Not only would the opponent take -2 AC to your attack from being flat footed, you also get your sneak attack damage. I don't know what benefit you'd really get from doing so though.

Maybe if you had a whip in your other hand, and wanted to sneak attack with the dagger rather than the whip from 10 feet away? So that the damage isn't non-lethal?


Nefreet wrote:

Unarmed Strikes don't take up a hand.

It doesn't matter if you're a human reloading a bow or a gnome reloading their spring-injected sword-syringe.

You can still headbutt, shoulder slam, kick, what-have-you. All that matters is you are able to make an unarmed attack within reach.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=1

Core Rulebook pg. 280 wrote:


Fist
Price —; Damage 1d4 B; Bulk —
Hands 1
Category Unarmed
Group Brawling; Traits Agile, Finesse, Nonlethal, Unarmed

The CRB seems to disagree with your assertion...

Or, we have no stats for any of your stated attacks...

~

Beowulf99;
Is your argument that firing a 1+ hand weapon both does and does not use your second hand?

The section you quoted states that firing does use 2 hands... so unless you have 3+ hands, you can't have the required 1 hand for threatening...

~

English is a horrible language for technical writing... part of the problem lies in implied subjects, and to many assumptives...

So, the only implied subject in the flanking rules is Melee Combat, as it is the only thing talked about.

The other position starts by assuming that it applies to ranged combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rules Quote:

When you and an ally are flanking a foe, it has a harder time defending against you. A creature is flat-footed (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to creatures that are flanking it.

To flank a foe, you and your ally must be on opposites sides or corners of the creature. A line drawn between the center of your space and the center of your ally’s space must pass through opposite sides or opposite corners of the foe’s space. Additionally, both you and the ally have to be able to act, must be wielding melee weapons or able to make an unarmed attack, can’t be under any effects that prevent you from attacking, and must have the enemy within reach. If you are wielding a reach weapon, you use your reach with that weapon for this purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------

So once a target is flanked the penalties apply. As long as you are "capable" of making a melee attack on the target and have an ally in position it takes the -2AC. It doesn't matter how you attack the target once it is flanked as long as you continue to fill all the flanking requirements.

So if for example a Lizardman or a goblin with a bite attack was using a bow he would get flanking bonuses with his bow because he could still bite wile both hands were being used by the Bow.

If yes then I 100% say anyone can do this with a kick/headbutt/elbow UA attack (you do not need an open hand to kick/headbutt/elbow someone).

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tempest_Knight wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Unarmed Strikes don't take up a hand.

It doesn't matter if you're a human reloading a bow or a gnome reloading their spring-injected sword-syringe.

You can still headbutt, shoulder slam, kick, what-have-you. All that matters is you are able to make an unarmed attack within reach.

The CRB seems to disagree with your assertion...

Did you not click on my link?

Unarmed wrote:
Since it’s part of your body, an unarmed attack can’t be Disarmed. It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon.

What you quoted is "Fist".

What I quoted is the section for Unarmed attacks, which is what this thread is discussing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tempest_Knight wrote:

Beowulf99;
Is your argument that firing a 1+ hand weapon both does and does not use your second hand?

The section you quoted states that firing does use 2 hands... so unless you have 3+ hands, you can't have the required 1 hand for threatening...

~

English is a horrible language for technical writing... part of the problem lies in implied subjects, and to many assumptives...

So, the only implied subject in the flanking rules is Melee Combat, as it is the only thing talked about.

The other position starts by assuming that it applies to ranged combat.

My argument is that 1+ Hand weapons are not the same as 2 Hand weapons. You never wield a bow in more than a single hand. You must have a free hand to attack with the bow, sure, but that free hand never stops being free.

You assume that the flanking rule implies that it only applies to melee combat. This is demonstrably false. It's requirements happen to be melee oriented, that I won't dispute. But there is no outright implication that a flanked opponent ONLY counts as Flat-Footed to melee attacks.

If that was the case then Flanking would directly say so. Flat Footed has a caveat for specifying certain circumstances under which it applies. There are plenty of feats that make a creature flat footed to specific creatures or to specific attacks. Like this one for the Rogue and Swashbuckler or this one for the Firebrand.

Paizo went to all the trouble to make sure that they could make Flat-Footed pretty specific. Flanking does no such thing, it only indicates that the creature is Flat-Footed to creatures that fulfill it's requirements.

So if you can make a melee attack against an opponent, and so can your friend on their other side, that foe is Flat-Footed to both of you, with no consideration for what attack you wish to make against it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:
Tempest_Knight wrote:

Beowulf99;
Is your argument that firing a 1+ hand weapon both does and does not use your second hand?

The section you quoted states that firing does use 2 hands... so unless you have 3+ hands, you can't have the required 1 hand for threatening...

~

English is a horrible language for technical writing... part of the problem lies in implied subjects, and to many assumptives...

So, the only implied subject in the flanking rules is Melee Combat, as it is the only thing talked about.

The other position starts by assuming that it applies to ranged combat.

My argument is that 1+ Hand weapons are not the same as 2 Hand weapons. You never wield a bow in more than a single hand. You must have a free hand to attack with the bow, sure, but that free hand never stops being free.

You assume that the flanking rule implies that it only applies to melee combat. This is demonstrably false. It's requirements happen to be melee oriented, that I won't dispute. But there is no outright implication that a flanked opponent ONLY counts as Flat-Footed to melee attacks.

If that was the case then Flanking would directly say so. Flat Footed has a caveat for specifying certain circumstances under which it applies. There are plenty of feats that make a creature flat footed to specific creatures or to specific attacks. Like this one for the Rogue and Swashbuckler or this one for the Firebrand.

Paizo went to all the trouble to make sure that they could make Flat-Footed pretty specific. Flanking does no such thing, it only indicates that the creature is Flat-Footed to creatures that fulfill it's requirements.

So if you can make a melee attack against an opponent, and so can your friend on their other side, that foe is Flat-Footed to both of you, with no consideration for what attack you wish to make against it.

Actually even all that doesn't really matter. You could use a heavy crossbow to attack and still get the flanking bonus, as long as you were in the right position and your legs weren't tied up or something else which prevented you from being able to kick.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, since unarmed strikes can be performed with any part of the body and since there is no special requirement to threaten with unarmed attacks (unlike PF1) you can hold any two-handed ranged weapon amd still threaten in you are in range.

Personally, I think that's pretty balanced since that largely means you're going to have to be adjacent to the enemy anyways thus negating the real advantage of ranged weapons...range.


Claxon wrote:

Yeah, since unarmed strikes can be performed with any part of the body and since there is no special requirement to threaten with unarmed attacks (unlike PF1) you can hold any two-handed ranged weapon amd still threaten in you are in range.

Since they specified even about unarmed attacks, I don't really think their intention was to allow players to use legs and feets while having both hands occupied with a ranged weapon.

I mean, since they had to specify it, what would be a situation where we have.

- A character (C) opposed on the enemy(E) side, flanking with an ally (A) -> CEA

- The character (C) has a ranged weapon which requires both hands ( 2 or 1+ is exactly the same. The only thing which changes is that a 2h weapon requires a 2 hands grip, and gripping is 1 action. A 1+ could be held with 1 weapon, while the other could hold a potion, a torch or anything else, and drop whatever it has held and attck as a free action. Not to say that if you attack you use both hands. )

- The character (C) has its legs and feet tied up, or simply "unable to perform kicks".

This situation sees a totally tied up character from waist to feet with a ranged weapon, which managed to reach an enemy during a dynamic combat and got in a proper flanking position. But not being able to kick it won't be able to benefit from Flanking.

Or if anybody could provide me some similar situation because I, currently at least, can't think about anything but a character unable to move its legs/feet ( and since both grabbed and immobilized allows unarmed attack, you can move your feets and legs even in these situations ).


Nefreet wrote:
Tempest_Knight wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Unarmed Strikes don't take up a hand.

It doesn't matter if you're a human reloading a bow or a gnome reloading their spring-injected sword-syringe.

You can still headbutt, shoulder slam, kick, what-have-you. All that matters is you are able to make an unarmed attack within reach.

The CRB seems to disagree with your assertion...

Did you not click on my link?

Unarmed wrote:
Since it’s part of your body, an unarmed attack can’t be Disarmed. It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon.

What you quoted is "Fist".

What I quoted is the section for Unarmed attacks, which is what this thread is discussing.

Show me any data line for any other unarmed attack.

We do have rules that say you can attack with other body parts, but they still use the same statistics... one of which is "Hands 1"...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tempest_Knight wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Tempest_Knight wrote:
1+ does not equal 1. (We can agree on that simple math precept, correct?)

Hypocrite much?

I've linked to and quoted that unarmed strikes (the focus of this discussion) take 0 hands.

I hope we can agree that 0 ≠ 1, right?

Show me the data bar for any other unarmed strike...

Core Rulebook, pg. 283 wrote:


An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though it’s categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits. Since it’s part of your body, an unarmed attack can’t be Disarmed. It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon.

So... You can hold something and still make an unarmed strike... it does not say 0 Hands.

By the RAW you need 1 hand to 'wield' an unarmed strike.

Firing a Bow requires 2 hands: RAW

Unless you have the required 3 hands, you aren't able to make an unarmed strike while you fire a bow...

So are you telling me that an armless person cannot make an "unarmed" attack.. I know a certin black knight that will completly disagree or at worst call it a draw

Shadow Lodge

Unarmed wrote:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 283 1.1

An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though it’s categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits. Since it’s part of your body, an unarmed attack can’t be Disarmed. It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon.
Free-Hand wrote:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 282 1.1

This weapon doesn’t take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armor. A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one free-hand weapon on it.

Your hand has to be truly 'empty' for you to make an unarmed attack with it: I think the 'It also doesn’t take up a hand' line for Unarmed allows you to freely use maneuvers or abilities that require a free hand rather than allow you to punch someone with the hand that is holding something.

Realistically, you can't really threaten someone with an unarmed attack when attacking them with a bow:

  • Your offhand is holding your bow and is fully outstretched toward your foe (presumably without touching) so that hand is extremely occupied (if you try to bend that elbow, that arm is suddenly working against the full draw-weight of the bow)
  • Your main hand is holding the bowstring at your 'main hand' shoulder, so it is likewise occupied and well out of reach of your foe.
  • Your head is way too far from your target to headbutt.
  • That leaves a leg-kick of some sort, but you are standing with your shoulder facing your foe, which will limit this greatly: Even if you can do a JCVD jump / split-kick, the lower-half of your bow seems likely to get in the way
Of course, this is a fantasy game rather than an archery simulator.

Liberty's Edge

In response to the question and ignoring the appendage measuring contest above I am just going to give you my own unfiltered opinion on the question:

Spoiler:
LMAO! No dude you're kidding, right? What's next, are you going to try to buy and argue that you can control a dozen guard dogs every round at level 1?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tempest_Knight wrote:

By the RAW you need 1 hand to 'wield' an unarmed strike.

Firing a Bow requires 2 hands: RAW

Unless you have the required 3 hands, you aren't able to make an unarmed strike while you fire a bow...

Nope. "RAW" you need 1 hand to 'wield' a "fist".

CRB PG. 283 "Unarmed Trait" wrote:
An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though it’s categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits. Since it’s part of your body, an unarmed attack can’t be Disarmed. It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon.

Last I checked a leg for kicking isn't a grasping appendage. Or a face for a headbutt. Or does a Dhampir need a free hand to bite? A Lizardfolk needs a free hand to tail whip?

Yeah, firing a bow requires the use of 2 hands, but mechanically only 1 of those hands is wielding the bow. The other is a free hand that is only used for a few moments, and arguably not in use while the arrow flies, no matter how short a time that is.

So what is your exact point again? That Flanking NEVER applies to ranged combat? OR that Bows use too many hands to qualify, but thrown weapons and hand crossbows are a-okay?

What about Leshy Seed Pods?


Does common sense tell us anything at all about a kick requiring a free hand?

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.

There are lots of statblocks for unarmed attacks: bites, claws, talons, tongues, fists, feet, elbows, knees and gores (and more) are all available depending on your Ancestry and/or Class options (including Monk, Barbarian, Lizardfolk, etc). They just aren't listed for your convenience on the weapons table.

But that's not the point.

The qualifications for flanking include 1) positioning, and 2) "able to make an unarmed attack".

And, since we know that an Unarmed Attack, generally, "doesn’t take up a hand", it doesn't matter how many of your hands are occupied.

Saying you can't use a fist while wielding a two-handed object is as nonsensical as saying you can't use a Barbarian's bite while gagged - of course you can't - you just need to be able to make AN unarmed attack. If your fist is occupied, kick. If your mouth is occupied, use an elbow. It doesn't matter unless you are completely unable to attack at all.

This seems like pretty basic reasoning to me.


Nefreet wrote:


Saying you can't use a fist while wielding a two-handed object is as nonsensical as saying you can't use a Barbarian's bite while gagged - of course you can't - you just need to be able to make AN unarmed attack. If your fist is occupied, kick. If your mouth is occupied, use an elbow. It doesn't matter unless you are completely unable to attack at all.

This seems like pretty basic reasoning to me.

The point of the whole discussions is why they deliberately mentioned this

Quote:
Additionally, both you and the ally have to be able to act, must be wielding melee weapons or able to make an unarmed attack, can’t be under any effects that prevent you from attacking, and must have the enemy within reach.

1) both allies being able to act ( ex, the controlled contition)

2) must be wielding melee weapons or able to make an unarmed attack

3) can’t be under any effects that prevent you from attacking ( ex, the paralyzed condition)

4) must have the enemy within reach ( flanking positioning)

Now, here what really matters is the point 2

Quote:
must be wielding melee weapons or able to make an unarmed attack

Which means that he must be able to perform the melee attack, which will benefit from the flanking, with a weapon or an unarmed attack.

Being able to kick or bite while holding a crossbow with both hands means that you could benefit from the flanking stuff if you perform an unarmed attack. Not that you gain the benefits of flanking with a ranged weapon.

This just because a situation which involves a creature

- able to act
- with a 2h ranged weapon equipped
- able to perform the melee attack
- within the melee reach

Quote:
not able to perform a kick or a bite,

does not exist

So, if they had decided to give the flanking benefit even to ranged attack, they wouldn't had the need to specify point 2 and 3.

Or else, somebody feels free to provide an example with a creature with a ranged weapon, able to act and attack, withing the melee reach, not able to perform either a kick or, if the creature has it, a bite/tail hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
Or else, somebody feels free to provide an example with a creature with a ranged weapon, able to act and attack, withing the melee reach, not able to perform either a kick or, if the creature has it, a bite/tail hit.

It does seem that the authors over-specified the requirements for flanking. They could have omitted everything except the position and ability to attack requirements, the rest is redundant.


mrspaghetti wrote:
Does common sense tell us anything at all about a kick requiring a free hand?

Not is a game that uses arbitrary rules.

Before anyone argues that point... all games use arbitrary rules.

~

If we want to get into real world physics, it is a matter of counterbalance and kinetic potential and mechanical flow

Without moving any part of the rest of your body, a kick has little force behind it.

~

If we want to get in to can you flank with a ranged weapon...

We have the simple rule that Specific beats General...

So, General rule, you are not flanking. (I would assume we agree, correct?)

Specific rule;

Core Rulebook, pg 476, Flanking wrote:

To flank a foe, you and your ally must be on opposites sides or corners of the creature. A line drawn between the center of your space and the center of your ally’s space must pass through opposite sides or opposite corners of the foe’s space. Additionally, both you and the ally have to be able to act, must be wielding melee weapons or able to make an unarmed attack, can’t be under any effects that prevent you from attacking, and must have the enemy within reach. If you are wielding a reach weapon, you use your reach with that weapon for this purpose.

To break that down... for #6 to be true, every preceding dictate must also be true (again, I assume we agree on this, correct?)

1.) You and an ally are on opposites sides or corners of the creature;
If TRUE continue; If FALSE end
2.) Both you and the ally are to be able to act
If TRUE continue; If FALSE end
3.) Both you and the ally must be wielding melee weapons or able to make an unarmed attack
If TRUE continue; If FALSE end
4.) Neither you nor the ally can be under any effects that prevent you from attacking
If TRUE continue; If FALSE end
5.) Both you an the ally must have the enemy within reach(natural or weapon)
If TRUE continue; If FALSE end
6.) You flank a foe.

Now we need to figure out if this is a Specific Rule for Melee, a Specific Rule for Range, or a Specific Rule for both.

Grade school English would have us look at what is talked about in the section.

Let us apply that principle;

Does the section talk about Melee Combat/Weapons/Attacks? YES
Does the section talk about Ranged Combat/Weapons/Attacks? NO
Does the section talk about both Melee and Ranged Combat/Weapons/Attacks? NO

So, according to a grade school understanding of English, the section is a Specific Rule for Melee Combat.

~

Nefreet,

If you would like to disprove the Rules as presented in the CRB, and the only general Unarmed strike with a stat bar, please...

Quote:
Find, quote, and notate(list book and page) other stated unarmed strikes.

Excluded are all of the Specific Rules for Special Unarmed Strikes found in the Feats and Features in some of the Ancestries and Classes... they are self defining.

Until then, we have two options:

1.) Any unarmed strike that isn't a Fist, or defined by an ancestry/class feature/feat lacks any stats.

2.) Any unarmed strike that isn't a Fist, or defined by an ancestry/class feature/feat are treated a Fist, but use other body parts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tempest_Knight wrote:

Until then, we have two options:

1.) Any unarmed strike that isn't a Fist, or defined by an ancestry/class feature/feat lacks any stats.

2.) Any unarmed strike that isn't a Fist, or defined by an ancestry/class feature/feat are treated a Fist, but use other body parts.

CRB page 278; Unarmed Attacks wrote:
Table 6–6: Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though you’ll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body.


Ubertron_X wrote:
Tempest_Knight wrote:

Until then, we have two options:

1.) Any unarmed strike that isn't a Fist, or defined by an ancestry/class feature/feat lacks any stats.

2.) Any unarmed strike that isn't a Fist, or defined by an ancestry/class feature/feat are treated a Fist, but use other body parts.

CRB page 278; Unarmed Attacks wrote:
Table 6–6: Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though you’ll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body.

Usually, yes. "Usually" doesn't mean "always".

I still think this is a debate about nothing. There is no advantage whatsoever to using a bow while standing directly adjacent to your target anyway. If anything, there are potentially a lot of big disadvantages, such as

1) Provoking potential AoOs
2) Volley penalties
3) Getting stabbed by your target on their turn since you're within their reach
4) Bows let you get at most 1/2 your STR bonus to damage, and that only if you have an expensive composite bow
5) Bows don't have the finesse trait, so Rogues don't get DEX to damage with them

So even if you're getting a flanking bonus to hit, you are negating all the normal advantages of using a ranged weapon by standing adjacent to your target, for (IMO) a net negative situation to the archer.

Tempest_Knight wrote:

If we want to get into real world physics, it is a matter of counterbalance and kinetic potential and mechanical flow

Without moving any part of the rest of your body, a kick has little force behind it.

Not that we are talking about real-world physics, but... People who are trained in unarmed combat can kick while their hands are occupied, and all PCs in P2E are at least trained in unarmed combat.

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.

No. No no no no no.

You're willfully ignoring the section we've repeatedly quoted that instructs us that an unarmed attack doesn't take up a hand.

It's the same sentence that tells us to treat a fist as a free-hand weapon.

What other possible meaning could that sentence have?

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The proper way to demonstrate the statblock for an elbow, kick, headbutt, what-have-you would be the same as a fist, but hands 0, because that's what we're explicitly told.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You can't base everything on a single chart. Reading matters, too.


Given how contentious ranged flanking became in PF1, is it not curious they did NOT say anything about ranged flanking in PF2?

/cevah


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, so if only unarmed strikes that use a grasping appendage, like a hand, use the rules of a Free Hand weapon, how do you use an unarmed strike that does not use a grasping appendage? If you are wearing a Boot on your foot, does that mean that you can't kick? Or if you intend to attack with your leg, you can't walk? Since it's not a "free leg weapon"?

Note that a Gauntlet also has a "Hands: 1" notation, and is a free hand weapon. Could that be why a "Fist" specifically has a hand notation? And mayhaps we are expected to critically think about how many hands it takes to tail whip.

@Cevah, I wasn't aware Ranged Flanking was ever contentious in PF1. The basic flanking rules were very clearly written to exclude Ranged combat in pf1. The only way you could benefit from flanking with range that I recall were teamwork feats.

PF2 is also pretty clear in how and when Flanking applies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tempest_Knight wrote:
I understand wanting a different answer, but this is the Rules forum, we are supposed to stick to the RAW.

What you're doing is a good job of highlighting why "stick to the RAW" isn't always a meaningful retort.

Because right now we have two groups arguing diametrically opposed rules interpretations, based entirely on which sentence they choose to put emphasis on.

How can we place any value on "strict RAW" if people in this thread can't even seem to agree on what the strict RAW actually is?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
How can we place any value on "strict RAW" if people in this thread can't even seem to agree on what the strict RAW actually is?

How about this definition?

Strict RAW (strɪkt rɔː): the interpretation of an excerpt of written rules that makes the least sense with respect to the overall ruleset and basic common sense. E.g.: You need a free hand to kick.

51 to 100 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Flanking with ranged weapons All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.