|
Can flanking ever render a creature flat footed against a ranged attack?
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 opposite sides 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, you must be wielding melee weapons or be able to make an unarmed attack, you can't be under any effects that prevent you from attacking, and you must both have the enemy within reach. If you are wielding a reach weapon, you use your reach with that weapon for this purpose.
It's not uncommon for a PC to be capable of making either a melee attack or a ranged attack at the same time. A dagger has the "Thrown 10 ft." trait, so a PC armed with a short sword in one hand and a dagger in the other is "wielding a melee weapon" so assuming that PC is "flanking a foe" and decides to throw the dagger rather than make a melee attack, is the foe still flat footed? I think the answer is a fairly clear yes.
How about if, instead, the same PC has an empty hand and a dagger, and chooses to throw the dagger? The character is no long "wielding a melee weapon." But is the PC "able to make an unarmed strike"? A player of mine argues that because you can't make an unarmed strike WHILE you're executing the ranged attack, for that moment in time, you're no longer flanking. I disagree, but am curious what other folks think.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are correct (although I have partaken in debates about this before, so you're not alone).
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. |
First of all, why would you ever throw a dagger at someone in melee reach when you could just stab/slash them???
RAW, you can flank your opponent with a melee weapon and then use a ranged attack against them, but personally, I consider this more of a 'rule gap' than RAI and would dis-allow it in any game I was running: Taking practical advantage of it tends to get really silly really fast (I aim my bow at him while somehow staying close enough that I could physically hit him somehow, despite having to be at least slightly over an arm's length away in order to actually shoot him and both of my hands being occupied with my weapon at that particular moment).
Expect lots of table variation on this...
|
|
First of all, why would you ever throw a dagger at someone in melee reach when you could just stab/slash them???
it was a simpler example than hunting up a creature with a ranged natural attack.
EDIT: PF2e Forum Search For "Flanking" + "Ranged"
Thank you for the link!
First of all, why would you ever throw a dagger at someone in melee reach when you could just stab/slash them???
RAW, you can flank your opponent with a melee weapon and then use a ranged attack against them, but personally, I consider this more of a 'rule gap' than RAI and would dis-allow it in any game I was running: Taking practical advantage of it tends to get really silly really fast (I aim my bow at him while somehow staying close enough that I could physically hit him somehow, despite having to be at least slightly over an arm's length away in order to actually shoot him and both of my hands being occupied with my weapon at that particular moment).
Expect lots of table variation on this...
I am curious is using Ranged for flanking that strong that you disallow it?
From a thematic view the flanking bonus comes from "When you and an ally are flanking a foe, it has a harder time defending against you" So I am unsure why it wouldn't apply. For the most part Ranged is quite a bit weaker than melee, the only advantage is you don't have to switch weapons though.
Honestly when you start applying logic/realism to counteract or make up new mechanics PF2 will start to feel really bad. Personally I think they should have just reworded flanking to be more distinct.
If they wanted it to only apply with melee weapons out they could have easily wrote it that way.
|
|
I am curious is using Ranged for flanking that strong that you disallow it?
I don't think it is, and I believe that he rule are clear that if you're flanking your ranged attacks benefit, but also that the potential to make a ranged attack doesn't contribute to flanking. To my mind the question rests solely in whether the character continues to contribute to flanking while executing the ranged attack.
This came up a long while ago in a game I ran involving a PC with a bow, and I ruled that the PC didn't provide flanking because the Bow's "1+" hand requirement meant he wasn't " able to make an unarmed attack" while his "free" hand was occupied by the bow attack. Then it came up again the other day in a combat with a creature who had the ability to make either a ranged or unarmed attack, and the player threw a fit because I was treating a PC as flanked. I let it go at the time, but thought I'd see what other people thought.
From a thematic view the flanking bonus comes from "When you and an ally are flanking a foe, it has a harder time defending against you" So I am unsure why it wouldn't apply.
I like my game to follow the rules as much as is practical, and I don't think the game really suffers under either ruling, so why not run it correctly?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont see the point where the PC in your first example becomes unable to make an unarmed attack. The default unarmed attack is named Fist but it doesn't actually have to be a fist and does not require a hand free.
|
|
I dont see the point where the PC in your first example becomes unable to make an unarmed attack. The default unarmed attack is named Fist but it doesn't actually have to be a fist and does not require a hand free.
According to Table 6-6 the default unarmed attack requires 1 hand.
The rules for Unarmed Attacks state that "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." Emphasis supplied.
Hands is one of the "statistics" of an unarmed strike with a fist.
I don't know that it's unreasonable to waive that requirement, but rules as written, I think it's there.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, why would you ever throw a dagger at someone in melee reach when you could just stab/slash them???
RAW, you can flank your opponent with a melee weapon and then use a ranged attack against them, but personally, I consider this more of a 'rule gap' than RAI and would dis-allow it in any game I was running: Taking practical advantage of it tends to get really silly really fast (I aim my bow at him while somehow staying close enough that I could physically hit him somehow, despite having to be at least slightly over an arm's length away in order to actually shoot him and both of my hands being occupied with my weapon at that particular moment).
Expect lots of table variation on this...
I am curious is using Ranged for flanking that strong that you disallow it?
From a thematic view the flanking bonus comes from "When you and an ally are flanking a foe, it has a harder time defending against you" So I am unsure why it wouldn't apply. For the most part Ranged is quite a bit weaker than melee, the only advantage is you don't have to switch weapons though.
Honestly when you start applying logic/realism to counteract or make up new mechanics PF2 will start to feel really bad. Personally I think they should have just reworded flanking to be more distinct.
If they wanted it to only apply with melee weapons out they could have easily wrote it that way.
No, it's not a power issue: It just feels like they intended for only melee attacks to get the flanking bonus. If they had dropped the word 'melee' from the weapon requirement to flank, I'd probably be fine with that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's not a power issue: It just feels like they intended for only melee attacks to get the flanking bonus. If they had dropped the word 'melee' from the weapon requirement to flank, I'd probably be fine with that.
Likewise, though, they could have added the word “melee” to the sentence “ A creature is flat-footed (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to creatures that are flanking it.”
You can make unarmed attacks with your body parts even while your hands are full, for the most part. Ergo, you will always flank when adjacent to an enemy.
Considering flanking with a bow is generally a dangerous idea, I think it's pretty reasonable to give them the flank.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can make unarmed attacks with your body parts even while your hands are full, for the most part. Ergo, you will always flank when adjacent to an enemy.
Considering flanking with a bow is generally a dangerous idea, I think it's pretty reasonable to give them the flank.
It's actually less dangerous than it used to be because most PCs and monsters don't have Attacks of Opportunity anymore. So while being adjacent to an enemy and firing your bow does provoke if they have AoO, most don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can make unarmed attacks with your body parts even while your hands are full, for the most part. Ergo, you will always flank when adjacent to an enemy.
Considering flanking with a bow is generally a dangerous idea, I think it's pretty reasonable to give them the flank.
You can even be fully geared for melee and still use ranged attacks while adjacent, e.g. when using spells. For example my Warpriest of Sarenrae is usually carrying a shield and scimitar and due to how spellcasting works can still shoot a Fire Ray at point blank.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a problem and it's not vague or ambiguous at all IMO but I am starting to think that the conversation in favor of allowing Flanking to Ranged attacks is being coopted by dirty little munchkins who want to try and twist the rules to mean that, at the end of the day, just want to squeeze another +2 to hit to their attack into their spreadsheet.
Flaking with Ranged Weapons and Attacks is CLEARLY not supposed to work, they spent several lines of text clarifying this but apparently they didn't tighten the wording enough because this whole silly "Well I could always have used unlisted non-weapon unarmed attack INSTEAD of the attack that I AM making now that is a fist but it's actually not because it's a foot, but it is... oh and also I'm ignoring the free hand requirement statistic from the listing too, by the way because I think the RAI supports it even though the RAW doesn't, hope that's ok..." in melee range when they're actively spending all of their actions to use a Ranged Weapon (Again, while in melee...). TRULY absurd.
Sometimes, in my opinion, this happens because some people consider RAW without even considering what the developer intent might have been.
We can't know intent unless a developers lets us know so it's pure speculation on what intent is. It might be intent, against intent or not even thought about so there is no intent. IMO it ends up boiling down to RAW because we have something to base it on that's concrete. I'm not sure how anyone can say one way or another they are SURE what intent is.
I think that depends how deep you dig in terms of raw.
Talking about flanking, for example, I wouldn't consider things like- Unarmed attacks can also be made with feet, so you can do the with both hand occupied.
or
- You can threaten an enemy in melee while wielding a heavy crossbow, knowing you can land a kick on him.
I just can see that unarmed attacks wouldn't be in their mind when flanking. they also made it clear that you can attack with other parts of your body.
"You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon."
Then you also have core heritages with access to things like bites and now ones with Claws, Hooves, Jaws and Tails. Why does a kick seem off the wall when a hoof, tail or bite is totally cool? Why is a foot with a hoof good to go but a foot with a boot bad and "twisted"? Or imagine a monk once: would you say it was "twisted' to allow a monk with their hands full to flank with their feet? Would you disallow monk kicks in that situation or think it was unimaginable to the devs?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am starting to think that the conversation in favor of allowing Flanking to Ranged attacks is being coopted by dirty little munchkins
In fairness, you tend to think that about pretty much everyone on pretty much every topic.
TRULY absurd.
You act as though this is only relevant in the most contrived of scenarios, when there's literally a class being playtested as we speak with a path built around wielding a ranged and melee weapon simultaneously in melee combat.
Someone asking if their pistol or hand crossbow benefits from the flat footed condition when they're flanking someone with the sword in their other hand isn't pulling some fantastical ultra-fringe nonsense scenario out of their ass.
And that person isn't an evil munchkin for having the horrible audacity to be unsure about how the mechanic is intended to work, as much as you enjoy painting people in that light.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flaking with Ranged Weapons and Attacks is CLEARLY not supposed to work, they spent several lines of text clarifying this but apparently they didn't tighten the wording enough because this whole silly "Well I could always have used unlisted non-weapon unarmed attack INSTEAD of the attack that I AM making now that is a fist but it's actually not because it's a foot, but it is... oh and also I'm ignoring the free hand requirement statistic from the listing too, by the way because I think the RAI supports it even though the RAW doesn't, hope that's ok..." in melee range when they're actively spending all of their actions to use a Ranged Weapon (Again, while in melee...). TRULY absurd.
I object to your statement the flanking is CLEARLY not supposed to work with ranged weapons. These rules are pretty simple. Its not unreasonable for two foes on either side to make you flatfooted even though they have ranged weapons.
Imagine the case of two flankers armed with two weapons each; a clan dagger(melee only) and a javelin (ranged only). Whether they attack with the melee weapon or the ranged weapon the rules clearly give them flanking.
The hand/foot requirement only potentially comes into it for certain weapon combinations and the fist. Only the intent is debateable, the rules are crystal clear, the unarmed weapon trait clearly says that it doesn't require a free hand. Which means you almost always count for flanking purposes regardless of what weapon you are wielding. Excluding only conditions like paralyzed.
Compared to other rules problem in this game, this one is pretty clear. It is not unreasonable in any way. There are plenty of other problems with using ranged weapons like lesser cover.
Move on. This is resolved.
I simply don't think it was their intention.
I just don't think any of us non-devs are really qualified to comment on intent.
question: would you allow a person using a crossbow to use it as an improvised melee weapon, hitting someone with the butt of the crossbow? If you would, that crossbow if as threatening as any other melee weapon for flank.
I wouldn't give him the possibility to benefit from the flanking mechanics, unless he decides to really hit using the crossbow as a club.
Is the character holding the weapon differently? You can make multiple weapon attacks in a round and h0w does the enemy know which attack you're using so they can ignore your threat? What about a dagger? Is the enemy somehow knowing that you're going to throw it instead of stab with it?
He will however give flanking to anybody else, as he will be threatening the enemy.
This confuses me. They drop their defense for one but not for another? Why would flatfoted vanish because you shot but magically appear if you club them and then always stay for the person you're flanking with... It's like Schrodinger's flanking. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- If you use a weapon to deliver a melee hit, you are elegible for the flanking condition ( depending your position ), whether you are using a normal weapon or an improvised one.
That's not how the ability is presented though. It's the ability to make one that activates flanking. You have to add "reasoning" to try to prevent ranged while I'm adding "reasoning" to explain why it works as-is: The difference is that mine doesn't need the reasoning while yours does.
"you must be wielding melee weapons or be able to make an unarmed attack" in NO way infers or assumes that you ARE making such an attack, just that you are "able to". So I don't see how you can bring up "too much reasoning" as you don't have a point unless you do that.
- Being able to deliver a melee blow ( a Sword or a Crossbow as improvised weapon for example ), put you in the position of being able to perform a melee attack ( whether you deliver/ed it or not ). By doing so, you provide assistance to your ally.
And I was using too much reasoning? Are you able to make a melee attack on the target and do you have someone else that can do so across from you on the other side of the target?: if you do, you qualify for the flanking. Adding additional qualifiers seems the definition to "too much reasoning".
The "simplier" solution would be to follow the rule as presented: the rule doesn't even mention a weapon or the attack used, just that it give the flatfooted condition to those flanking.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of the disconnect comes from PF1 flanking specifying Melee attacks. That wording was dropped from PF2, allowing a daring archer to point blank shoot their foe, and benefit from his friend flanking said foe.
I see no issue with this, and allow it in my games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is pretty reasonable at this point to assume that if there was an intention to add "against melee attacks" to the rules for flanking, if that is what is intended. Maybe they still will, but it doesn't seem like this is a really tricky one to fix if the intention was for flanking to only apply to melee attacks. The wording of feint is super specific for this exact reason.
I think a lot of the disconnect comes from PF1 flanking specifying Melee attacks. That wording was dropped from PF2, allowing a daring archer to point blank shoot their foe, and benefit from his friend flanking said foe.
There's a whole thing in the flanking description about how you have to be wielding a melee weapons.
I think it would not have been hard for them to put "you can always use a ranged weapon too." Or why even bother saying the thing about having to have a melee weapon, if the melee or ranged part of it didn't matter? Wouldn't it then just say, "Must be wielding a weapon."?This is one of the silliest discussions I've seen. (I don't mean that in any way to say anyone here is silly or stupid. I don't mean it that way)
Flanking requires melee. If someone wants to allow flanking with a bow in their home game, that's completely up to them.
There's a whole thing in the flanking description about how you have to be wielding a melee weapons.
you must be wielding melee weapons or be able to make an unarmed attack
It's not that restrictive, and it's entirely possible to be wielding a melee weapon and be able to make a ranged attack either with a hand crossbow, one of the guns from the playtest or a throwing weapon.
Similarly fists require a free hand (which you have with a bow, see p279), but there's many unarmed attacks that don't that are easily accessible, even if we want to ignore the possibility of kicking or headbutting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a whole thing in the flanking description about how you have to be wielding a melee weapons.
"or be able to make an unarmed attack". Neither one indicates or informs on what attack must be used.
I think it would not have been hard for them to put "you can always use a ranged weapon too."
Or "you must make a melee attack" if that was an actual requirement.
Or why even bother saying the thing about having to have a melee weapon, if the melee or ranged part of it didn't matter?
Because it's limited to your reach and ranged weapons do not have that.
Wouldn't it then just say, "Must be wielding a weapon."?
So monks and animal companions can't flank now?
This is one of the silliest discussions I've seen. (I don't mean that in any way to say anyone here is silly or stupid. I don't mean it that way)
I agree but I don't think it's in the same way I do. ;)
Flanking requires melee.
You are required to be able to melee to flank. You don't have such a requirement to take advantage of the flatfooted condition it creates though.
If someone wants to allow flanking with a bow in their home game, that's completely up to them.
Sure, I like it when a home game follows the rules instead of house-rules. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would not have been hard for them to put "you can always use a ranged weapon too."
On that same token couldn't you say it would not have been hard to specify that the flat footed condition granted by flanking only applies to melee attacks?
Yes, flanking wants a melee weapon (or unarmed strike), but it's not particularly hard to put yourself in a position where you can make a ranged attack while still holding a melee weapon... and while activating flanking requires a melee weapon or unarmed attack, the actual benefits of flanking simply say that the creature is flat-footed to you and takes a -2 circumstance penalty to AC, with no qualifiers associated with it.
So you can point to flanking expecting the player to have a melee weapon as a sign of intent and the people you're disagreeing with can point to the penalty to AC having no qualifiers about only applying to certain types of attacks... and then here we are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flanking requires melee. If someone wants to allow flanking with a bow in their home game, that's completely up to them.
No you are still saying it wrong. Flanking occurs when you have melee weapons or unarmed attack and are in a flanking position. Flanking inflicts the Flat Footed status on the enemy flanked and it applies to all attacks from the flankers. Yes that includes ranged attacks.
Yes there are 5 clauses but the wording is very clear and specific. It very clearly says "wielding melee weapons or be able to make an unarmed attack". That is very specific. They could have said the much easier "are attacking with" but they did not. It very much reads as a deliberate choice.
You effectively can flank and gain benefit from flat footed at melee range with ranged weapons in PF2. Anything else is a house rule.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flanking requires melee.
Technically "wielding melee weapons or able to make an unarmed attack". Language matters.
If someone wants to allow flanking with a bow in their home game, that's completely up to them.
Nobody that I've read anywhere is advocating "flanking with a bow". What is actually being discussed is "A creature is flat-footed (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to creatures that are flanking it."
So if two creatures are positioned correctly and "wielding melee weapons or able to make an unarmed attack", then the creature between them is flat-footed, but only to the creatures that are flanking it.
At that point it doesn't matter if you're attacking with a bow, a thrown knife, or even a spell. The creature is flat-footed to *you*.
I mean... can you make an unarmed attack with both of your hands occupied with a weapon that requires two hands? If your hands are both using a two-handed weapon, such as a bow or crossbow, then you can't make an unarmed attack while you're using the bow. So since you can't make an unarmed attack while using a bow, you can't flank with it.
If your argument is that it's a free action to take your hand away to make an unarmed attack, then you could say that about anything. I can't think of many situations where you couldn't make an unarmed attack. So, since you can pretty much always drop a grip on a weapon to make an unarmed attack, that language seems extraneous. Can you fire a bow and make an unarmed attack at the same time? If the answer is no, then it seems you can't flank with a bow.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean... can you make an unarmed attack with both of your hands occupied with a weapon that requires two hands?
Yes.
If your argument is that it's a free action to take your hand away to make an unarmed attack, then you could say that about anything.
I don't think anyone has made that argument.
Can you fire a bow and make an unarmed attack at the same time?
Sure. MAP applies normally.
I mean... can you make an unarmed attack with both of your hands occupied with a weapon that requires two hands? If your hands are both using a two-handed weapon, such as a bow or crossbow, then you can't make an unarmed attack while you're using the bow. So since you can't make an unarmed attack while using a bow, you can't flank with it.
If your argument is that it's a free action to take your hand away to make an unarmed attack, then you could say that about anything. I can't think of many situations where you couldn't make an unarmed attack. So, since you can pretty much always drop a grip on a weapon to make an unarmed attack, that language seems extraneous. Can you fire a bow and make an unarmed attack at the same time? If the answer is no, then it seems you can't flank with a bow.
As others have said, you can make unarmed attacks with other appendages. The listed "fist" notes needing a hand, because it's a fist. A kick would require a free leg, and a headbutt a free head. But for simplicities sake Paizo decided to just base all unarmed attacks that aren't specific, like a bite or tail whip, on a fist.
Then there's the question of timing. 1+ hand weapons never clearly state that both of your hands are ever occupied. The rule only ever states that your other hand must be free to shoot the bow. You can infer that means that the other hand is used during the shooting, but the rule never calls out your other hand being taken up at all, quite the opposite, it says it must be free.
Since you have a free hand, you can punch. And I'd even argue, as I've done in at least one other thread, that you could even pull this off with a 2 hand ranged weapon. Just substitute a kick, headbutt, hip bump or mighty pelvic thrust for punch and you are good to go. Or if you happen to be one of the several ancestries that can grab a non-fist unarmed attack, use one of those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean... can you make an unarmed attack with both of your hands occupied with a weapon that requires two hands?
Yes.
If your hands are both using a two-handed weapon, such as a bow or crossbow, then you can't make an unarmed attack while you're using the bow.
Sure you can. You can wield more than 1 weapon and/or be able to make more than 1 unarmed attack. Why do you think people have been debating this?
If your argument is that it's a free action to take your hand away to make an unarmed attack, then you could say that about anything.
I don't think anyone even thought about anything close to this before you brought it up.
I can't think of many situations where you couldn't make an unarmed attack.
Correct, which is why people are saying you can flank without a problem.
Can you fire a bow and make an unarmed attack at the same time?
I can't think of any time you ever make simultaneous attack in the game. Even things like Twin Takedown use sequential strikes. Good thing flanking doesn't require attacking to trigger flatfooted.
If the answer is no, then it seems you can't flank with a bow.
That makes no sense as it doesn't require a melee attack just that you COULD make one: that could be an attack with the butt of the crossbow, a kick, a bite or whatever melee attack you have available.
Then surely they'll changed the sentence to "must be wielding a melee or ranged weapon" in the next printing, for those of us who just don't seem to get it. Since it's that cut & dried.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then surely they'll changed the sentence to "must be wielding a melee or ranged weapon" in the next printing, for those of us who just don't seem to get it. Since it's that cut & dried.
Right after they change the line to "A creature is flat-footed for melee attacks only (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to creatures that are flanking it." Or, you know, you can just read the words on the page and not add anything since it makes sense as is without alteration... and again, you're cutting out natural attacks!!! poor monks and animal companions that can't flank. You must really hate those guys. :(
I will also say that they've had 2 errata and haven't touched flanking once, despite it being a hot issue on the forums multiple times.
If it were going to change it would have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flanking is a bit odd and a change from previous editions but it is not really a problem. I doubt it will change.
But honestly the errata so far is mostly just typos, they haven't really fixed much of anything yet. Their point seems to be more play it and have fun rather than worrying too much about the rule details.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will also say that they've had 2 errata and haven't touched flanking once, despite it being a hot issue on the forums multiple times.
If it were going to change it would have.
I won't say it's been a hot issue as the conclusion has always been the same. The rules are quite clear about it.
The fact that they speak about melee weapons is to avoid flanking at range with a ranged weapon as it would be way to strong. It would also raise questions about casters who would be able to flank and provide flanking as long as they are able to cast a Spell Attack Roll spell.
For me, the rules are quite straigthforward. If PF1 rules were the same, I'm pretty sure noone would have ever brought this issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, since they removed the explicit "only benefits melee weapons" clause from PF1 and knowing how much this question came up I lean towards the interpretation that ranged weapons can benefit, supposing that the other conditions to create flanking occur.
Flanking causes flat-footed. There are many ways to cause flat-footed besides flanking. Flat-footed as a general condition, applies to ranged attacks.
Flanking specifies it requires melee attacks or unarmed strikes to create, but I think it might be a stretch to say that it requires them to benefit. If you meet the conditions, the creature is flat-footed. And supposing you continue to meet the conditions while making a ranged attack, I don't know why you wouldn't benefit.
Except people carrying baggage from PF1.
Or why even bother saying the thing about having to have a melee weapon, if the melee or ranged part of it didn't matter?Because it's limited to your reach and ranged weapons do not have that.
Graystone really nailed this part on the head and it is important to bring it back up when trying to understand why the wording was necessary.
If the developers had put "ranged weapon" in the definition, then questions of range and reach become way, way more complicated.
Flanking makes the character flat-footed because they are distracted by the immediate potential of a strike, not the strike itself. The reach of unarmed strikes and melee weapon attacks is what defines the engagement zones of the greatest majority of characters of on Golarion. Yes, there might be 10 high level adventurer's around who have feats that let them use a ranged weapon to make attacks of opportunity, but as far as I can tell, those all limited your zone of engagement to 5ft, regardless of what your reach might otherwise be.
Flanking is about being distracted while being within the reflexive reach of an enemy regardless of whether they have a means to have a reflective attack. Once that is true, the character is distracted and is left flatfooted to the people who make that condition true, regardless of the weapon they use to make an attack with. While I personally would have liked that to mean that the character should be flat footed to anyone at that point, because they are already distracted, I realize that the power balance issues it would make are just not worth it mechanically. Solo Monsters would just always have a -2 to their AC against the entire party and minions could make PCs way way too vulnerable to enemy casters casting from a distance.