Opportune Backstab:
Reaction
Trigger A creature within your melee reach is hit by a melee attack from one of your allies.
When your enemy is hit by your ally, you capitalize upon the distraction. Make a Strike against the triggering creature.
I am wondering if there is anything that prevents you from doing an opportune backstab with a ranged weapon? As long as the creature is within your melee reach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently nothing prevents it.
The intent seems for melee, yet PF2 has done a good job of labeling Strikes as melee or ranged as needed. So while this instance may be an oversight, for now it's legal to use a ranged Strike, if within melee range.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I see anything that would limit it to melee weapons only, but you would have to be within melee reach and your ally has to hit with a melee attack, nothing says you have to make a melee attack.
That was my understanding as well, good to know you guys agree :)
I don't think I see anything that would limit it to melee weapons only, but you would have to be within melee reach and your ally has to hit with a melee attack, nothing says you have to make a melee attack.
It does lead to some weird scenarios where someone can carry a whip and have a thrown weapon in their other hand. Or because they have reach for some other reason can also make ranged attacks.
But yeah, RAW it works, RAI I would be questioning intent but wouldn't rule against RAW as a GM.
|
There is also the Ranger Feat Snap Shot.
You’ve learned to react with ranged weapons when a creature is in close quarters. You can use a reaction that normally allows you to make a melee weapon Strike to instead make a ranged weapon Strike. You must be Striking an adjacent target. If necessary for the reaction’s trigger, you treat your ranged weapon as if it had a reach of 5 feet. If the reaction has other requirements, such as wielding a specific kind of weapon, Snap Shot doesn’t allow you to ignore them; it allows you only to replace a melee weapon Strike with a ranged weapon Strike.
Opportune Backstab:
ReactionTrigger A creature within your melee reach is hit by a melee attack from one of your allies.
When your enemy is hit by your ally, you capitalize upon the distraction. Make a Strike against the triggering creature.I am wondering if there is anything that prevents you from doing an opportune backstab with a ranged weapon? As long as the creature is within your melee reach.
Besides a GM who looks at it and calls shenanigans? No, you're good.
But be aware that there are plenty of GMs who would rule a melee strike is required, even if the RAW doesn't support that ruling. The RAI, to me, suggests replying in-kind. Otherwise any strike from any ally would be enough to trigger the reaction to begin with, but it's not, meaning the melee presence is what's important, especially if an enemy being within your melee reach is important for triggering the reaction.
Maybe it will be errata'd. Maybe it will go under the radar. Just be careful not to hinge your build on a loose ruling.
Opportune Backstab:
ReactionTrigger A creature within your melee reach is hit by a melee attack from one of your allies.
When your enemy is hit by your ally, you capitalize upon the distraction. Make a Strike against the triggering creature.I am wondering if there is anything that prevents you from doing an opportune backstab with a ranged weapon? As long as the creature is within your melee reach.
Besides a GM who looks at it and calls shenanigans? No, you're good.
But be aware that there are plenty of GMs who would rule a melee strike is required, even if the RAW doesn't support that ruling. The RAI, to me, suggests replying in-kind. Otherwise any strike from any ally would be enough to trigger the reaction to begin with, but it's not, meaning the melee presence is what's important, especially if an enemy being within your melee reach is important for triggering the reaction.
Maybe it will be errata'd. Maybe it will go under the radar. Just be careful not to hinge your build on a loose ruling.
I'm actually the DM, I was just peer-reviewing :) Ultimately I'd allow it cause it falls under the rule of cool, but the player went with something else for his ranged rogue instead.
|
I'm actually the DM, I was just peer-reviewing :) Ultimately I'd allow it cause it falls under the rule of cool, but the player went with something else for his ranged rogue instead.Opportune Backstab:
ReactionTrigger A creature within your melee reach is hit by a melee attack from one of your allies.
When your enemy is hit by your ally, you capitalize upon the distraction. Make a Strike against the triggering creature.I am wondering if there is anything that prevents you from doing an opportune backstab with a ranged weapon? As long as the creature is within your melee reach.
Besides a GM who looks at it and calls shenanigans? No, you're good.
But be aware that there are plenty of GMs who would rule a melee strike is required, even if the RAW doesn't support that ruling. The RAI, to me, suggests replying in-kind. Otherwise any strike from any ally would be enough to trigger the reaction to begin with, but it's not, meaning the melee presence is what's important, especially if an enemy being within your melee reach is important for triggering the reaction.
Maybe it will be errata'd. Maybe it will go under the radar. Just be careful not to hinge your build on a loose ruling.
The main hangup is getting your target flat-footed against a ranged attack: Melee attacks do this fairly easily (typically using the 'Gang Up' feat) but flanking a foe while using a ranged attack is, well, another forum debate entirely. Taking this, the underwhelming nature of rogue attacks without sneak attack, and the fact that ranged PCs usually don't want to be adjacent to their foe anyway makes Opportune Backstab a lot less tempting for an archer rogue.