Bow Characters Flanking In Melee

[Balkoth]

If a character with a bow is opposite someone wielding a melee weapon, do they automatically count as providing flanking because the bow user can make an unarmed strike?

I realize that the flanking bonus wouldn't apply to bow shows made in melee.

[Aratorin]

Yes he is Flanking, and yes, the enemy is Flat Footed to the bow attacks.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Quote:

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.

Actually it seems like the foe would be flat-footed to any unarmed or melee weapon strikes, but not against a ranged attack. Technically you might say that the foes is flat-footed because you COULD punch them, even if you're actually trying to shoot them, but I don't think that feels like an accurate reading of the intent.

[Aratorin]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Quote:

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.

Actually it seems like the foe would be flat-footed to any unarmed or melee weapon strikes, but not against a ranged attack. Technically you might say that the foes is flat-footed because you COULD punch them, even if you're actually trying to shoot them, but I don't think that feels like an accurate reading of the intent.

Whether it's intended or not, it is what the rules say. The enemy is Flat Footed to you as long as you are Flanking them.

[Ubertron_X]

Aratorin wrote:

Whether it's intended or not, it is what the rules say. The enemy is Flat Footed to you as long as you are Flanking them.

With the rule as written and its supportung rules you flank the enemy 99.9% of the time, no matter what you have in hand and not in hand, so that part of the rule could almost be deleted.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

RAW yes.

Want to take it to dumber levels.

Take a whip, cast cantrips from 10ft away and still qualify as flanking. (Don't need to be trained or ever use it)

A person with a whip is more threatening when flanking you from 10ft away than someone with a hand crossbow... for reasons.

I hate the flanking rules as written, but it is what it is.

I do like the idea of alchemists point blank glassing their foes though.

[tivadar27]

Actually, the one open question here, which has come up in other threads: You *may* not threaten if both of your hands are occupied with a ranged weapon/non-weapon while flanking. While you can always make an unarmed strike typically:

CRB p.278 wrote:

Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed

attacks. You can Strike with your fist or another body
part,...
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.

People have used this to argue that while you can kick someone, it still requires Hands: 1, as Fists do. I'm not sure I believe it, but it's the argument being used against being able to flank with a bow. However, if you have a 1-handed ranged weapon, you'd threaten with the other hand.

There's definitely questions about intent, but RAW, the above is the only thing that might prevent you from flanking with a bow.

[Aratorin]

You have a free hand with a bow. In fact it's required to have a free hand to use the bow.

[tivadar27]

Aratorin wrote:

You have a free hand with a bow. In fact it's required to have a free hand to use the bow.

You don't when you fire it, because firing the weapon requires you to use your free hand to retrieve, nock, and fire. You'd *provide* flanking with a bow, but you couldn't benefit from it when firing the bow.

EDIT: by the logic of people who argue the above... as I said, I wouldn't apply it myself, but I think the notion that you do need 2 hands to fire a bow is correct. For example, if someone readied an action to shove you off an edge as you went to fire your bow and succeeded, I'd definitely rule you needed a critical success to grab the edge because you didn't have a hand free.

[Aratorin]

I've made that argument myself, but every group I've played with has shot it down. As I tend to play ranged characters myself, I conceded the point and let them give me the benefit.

[tivadar27]

Aratorin wrote:

I've made that argument myself, but every group I've played with has shot it down. As I tend to play ranged characters myself, I conceded the point and let them give me the benefit.

You a certainly a magnanimous individual! :-P

[Ubertron_X]

tivadar27 wrote:

You *may* not threaten if both of your hands are occupied with a ranged weapon/non-weapon while flanking.

But how about that I do threaten, even when using a crossbow (2 hands), simply because improvised weapons are a thing? And I think especially a crossbow makes for a mighty fine improvised club of some sorts.

So unless you are dual-wielding soft cushions or wet noodles I guess flanking will be justified.

[tivadar27]

Ubertron_X wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

You *may* not threaten if both of your hands are occupied with a ranged weapon/non-weapon while flanking.

But how about that I do threaten, even when using a crossbow (2 hands), simply because improvised weapons are a thing? And I think especially a crossbow makes for a mighty fine improvised club of some sorts.

So unless you are dual-wielding soft cushions or wet noodles I guess flanking will be justified.

Nope, improvised weapons are not weapons :-P. By definition. Flanking states you must be wielding a melee weapon or capable of making an unarmed attack. If it simply said "capable of making a strike" you'd be fine.