Thrown Daggers, are they Ranged Weapons?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 217 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Remy Balster wrote:

Elaborate please.

I very very rarely ignore logic. Of that I'm reasonably certain.

It has been elaborated, you just summarily ignored it.

Trying again:

Quote:

Gang Up: Does this feat (page 161) allow you to flank a foe with ranged weapons?

The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent. The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat. (JMB, 8/13/10)

In the Core, flanking has to do with melee attacks.

If you make ranged attacks, you are not making a melee attack.
In gang up, you don't count as flanking for ranged even if you would with a melee attack.

You are just using a very pedantic reading to get the meaning you desire and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
James Risner wrote:
If you throw a dagger from a flanked position, you do not count as flanking and do not gain sneak attack.
Why?
Flanking specifically refers to melee attacks.
PRD wrote:
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Where is the reference to melee? Where is it even mentioned that you need to attack?

Don't spout the previous paragraph. That is about getting a bonus to melee attacks, not about flanking.

The FAQ you quote erroneously claims that flanking refers to melee. Show me where.

/cevah

Silver Crusade

In says it in the paragraph you're choosing to ignore.


Remy Balster wrote:

How can you both be flanking if flanking means you are mid-melee attack?

Don't make no sense. Either you don't need to be in the middle of making a melee attack to flank, or you do. Which is it?

Your position fails the internal consistency test. Thus, is wrong. Choose a new position.

You clearly don't understand my actual position, so of course you think it is wrong. Come back when you understand the actual position, then we can have a discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
In says it in the paragraph you're choosing to ignore.

I am not ignoring it. Here's the text:

PRD wrote:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

Written another way:

When [action], you get [benefit] if [condition].
  • action = making a melee attack
  • benefit = a +2 flanking bonus
  • condition = your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner
Note that the [condition] is more than just flanking.

Since the benefit I want is "flanking" and not "a +2 flanking bonus", I don't need to satisfy the [condition] of this paragraph.

Also note that the only mention of "flanking" in that paragraph is "a +2 flanking bonus". Everywhere else something sais "a +2 X bonus", the "X" is considered a bonus type and not some condition.

You are reading the paragraph as requiring the [action] and [condition] as part of the definition, despite the next paragraph clearly stating otherwise.

/cevah

EDIT: added bit about bonus type

Silver Crusade

The entire section is about flanking. Part of flanking is making an attack (which has conditions, like 'melee attack'), and part of it is about the position of your ally relative to you and the target (which has it's own conditions).

Choosing to ignore the part where it says 'melee attack', and then claim that it doesn't say anything about melee attacks, is absurd. Especially in the light of the FAQ which says that flanking is about melee attacks!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The entire section is about flanking. Part of flanking is making an attack (which has conditions, like 'melee attack'), and part of it is about the position of your ally relative to you and the target (which has it's own conditions).

Choosing to ignore the part where it says 'melee attack', and then claim that it doesn't say anything about melee attacks, is absurd. Especially in the light of the FAQ which says that flanking is about melee attacks!

You ignored the part where I said I did not ignore it and explained why it does not apply. You disagree with me. This is why I say to hit the FAQ requests.

FAQ Request #1
Quote:

CRB p197, under "Flanking", first paragraph defines a "flanking bonus". The second paragraph defines a test for "flanking". Is "flanking", not the "flanking bonus", solely dependent on position per this paragraph? This affects ranged sneak attacks.

Does this change for ranged weapon(s) that also threaten?

FAQ Request #2
Quote:
CRB p197, under "Flanking", first paragraph defines a "flanking bonus" and the requirements to get it. Can a character with Snap Shot feat and wielding a ranged weapon meet the qualifications of "opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner"? If he can qualify, is he "flanking" while in position to threaten opposite his ally? (Not get a "bonus", but be "flanking")

/cevah

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I wasn't aware this has been a raging topic for some time.

I seriously doubt it will be answered any time soon.


Remy Balster wrote:

Elaborate please. If I am ignoring something, it isn't intentional.

I know I am not ignoring the FAQ at all. We just get something different from reading it. The context of the question and how it is answered strongly indicates (to me) that the entire FAQ is addressing the standard benefit from flanking, ie the +2 flanking bonus.

Strictly by RAW the FAQ doesn't touch on whether or not ranged attacks can be flanking (for the purpose of sneak attacks), but I think the intent of the FAQ entry is clear enough when put in light of the question that spawned it.

Charlie Bell wrote:
Does the Gang Up feat from the APG let you flank with ranged weapons? As written it seems like it does. That would really make it a must-have for archery rogues.

I know that doesn't match the question that they put in the FAQ, and it doesn't touch on sneak attack which is suggested by the last sentence in that question. However, I don't see any other "Answered in FAQ" remarks on other posts about Gang Up, so it stands to reason that this the questions the devs weighed when they put up that FAQ entry.

The argument for ranged flanking still stands in RAW, but in this case the intent is so clear that I'm willing to accept it and move on.


Ssyvan wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:

Elaborate please. If I am ignoring something, it isn't intentional.

I know I am not ignoring the FAQ at all. We just get something different from reading it. The context of the question and how it is answered strongly indicates (to me) that the entire FAQ is addressing the standard benefit from flanking, ie the +2 flanking bonus.

Strictly by RAW the FAQ doesn't touch on whether or not ranged attacks can be flanking (for the purpose of sneak attacks), but I think the intent of the FAQ entry is clear enough when put in light of the question that spawned it.

Charlie Bell wrote:
Does the Gang Up feat from the APG let you flank with ranged weapons? As written it seems like it does. That would really make it a must-have for archery rogues.

I know that doesn't match the question that they put in the FAQ, and it doesn't touch on sneak attack which is suggested by the last sentence in that question. However, I don't see any other "Answered in FAQ" remarks on other posts about Gang Up, so it stands to reason that this the questions the devs weighed when they put up that FAQ entry.

The argument for ranged flanking still stands in RAW, but in this case the intent is so clear that I'm willing to accept it and move on.

I found that they edited the question to remove the rogue specific bits telling, myself. But it doesn’t answer the SA question directly, despite the implication of the original question, for whatever reason, they decided not to address it directly.

But… over the course of this thread I’ve noticed something interesting that very well might explain why there are two camps here. Notice the above bolded bits? I’m of the position that they’re gibberish.

There is no such thing in the rules as a flanking attack. Ranged, melee, or otherwise. You don't flank with an attack. The fact that people keep saying that flank attacks must necessarily be melee attacks, or that you cannot have a ranged flank attack… or that to flank you need to attack at all... that is just gibberish. There is no such thing as any of those. But… some folk keep phrasing it this way, and that suggests that they actually think a flank attack is a game term.

Do you think there is a flank attack in Pathfinder?

There isn’t.

Flanking is entirely positional. It can modify an attack you make while you are flanking. Flanking is a state of being, it is a condition which you either are in or are not in.

There are no flank attacks here. Look again how they phrased that FAQ answer. Pay close attention to the wording, the order, the syntax and grammar. They take special care to not say “flank attack” and "flank with an attack", why?

Quote:
The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent. The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat. (JMB, 8/13/10)

Once you see that flanking isn’t the act of making an attack, but is instead a positional condition… it all becomes clear if you just read the rules how it all functions.

Because nowhere in the rules do you find flanking to be a kind of attack.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Remy Balster wrote:
Once you see that flanking isn’t the act of making an attack, but is instead a positional condition… it all becomes clear if you just read the rules how it all functions.

That is the thing, we don't see it. We don't agree with your conditions.

I don't accept your view, but instead I believe flanking only matters when making melee attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Once you see that flanking isn’t the act of making an attack, but is instead a positional condition… it all becomes clear if you just read the rules how it all functions.

That is the thing, we don't see it. We don't agree with your conditions.

I don't accept your view, but instead I believe flanking only matters when making melee attacks.

Normally flanking only matters while making a melee attack, this is true. Because by default, the only benefit of flanking is a +2 flanking bonus if you make a melee attack while you flank our target.

There are feats and abilities that change that, however. Sneak Attack is one, for example. It gives a different benefit to flanking, namely, extra damage while you flank.

But yes, I am aware that you don't see it. You have to look at the details, and be especially careful to read things as they actually are written... instead of making things up because that makes it easier for you to grasp. Try being a little pedantic. This is a rules forum after all. Being a pedant isn't the insult you might think it to be 'round these here parts.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Remy Balster wrote:
You have to look at the details, and be especially careful to read things as they actually are written...

No you have to ignore context, ignore logic, and intentionally parse things with the goal of getting what you want out of the rules to get to your position.

Very few GM's will operate the game like you describe in this thread.


James Risner wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
You have to look at the details, and be especially careful to read things as they actually are written...

No you have to ignore context, ignore logic, and intentionally parse things with the goal of getting what you want out of the rules to get to your position.

Very few GM's will operate the game like you describe in this thread.

No, you do not.

I'm actually at my position... I do believe I have more experience getting here than you. You might even call me a subject expert on arriving at my position.

You don't ignore context to get here, in fact context helps get here. You absolutely require logic to get here, not an overwhelming amount, just a 'healthy sane brain' amount of it.

And you absolutely do not need a goal... well, other than actually reading the words on the pages of the rule books with the goal of understanding what they mean. I guess having that goal does help get to my position. That is my only goal related to this topic. I'm not even playing a rogue, nor have plans to... not a big priority for me.

I just like discussing the rules.

Do I expect most GMs to run the game by RAW? Naw, not really. Almost every game I've ever played in has deviated from the rules in numerous ways. Rule zero and whatnot. And when I GM I houserule a whole lot of things too. You are certainly free to play in a game where you cannot get your sneak attack damage while you flank an enemy. You can play in a game where rogues cannot even sneak attack… or every attack is always a sneak attack. You can play in games without rogues as a character option, or with rogues as the only option. Why should I care about people’s home games or what their GM houserules?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Remy Balster wrote:

I just like discussing the rules.

Why should I care about people’s home games or what their GM houserules?

Obviously I do too, because I'm also on this forum.

I just appreciate (you may also) that there are multiple views on how things work and just because someone believes it works differently doesn't mean it is a house rule.

So I tend to play with no games (including PFS) where there are many (if any) house rules.

Silver Crusade

The individual weapon descriptions are talking about using that weapon. When the cestus and gauntlet talk about modifying unarmed strikes, they have no need to say 'unarmed strikes with this weapon', but that's what it means.

Believing otherwise shows a disconnect with reality that could be diagnosed....!


Remy Balster wrote:
I found that they edited the question to remove the rogue specific bits telling, myself. But it doesn’t answer the SA question directly, despite the implication of the original question, for whatever reason, they decided not to address it directly.

Good point, and I hadn't thought of it like that. Perhaps we need something that is a bit more explicit about what we're asking? (and I'm still aware of the other FAQs mentioned in this thread)

I don't have the CRB in front of me so I can't format this properly with page numbers and stuff.

The Rogue's Sneak Attack mentions that when the rogue flanks her target she deals the extra damage. Flanking only mentions a bonus when making melee attacks, but the rules for determining when you're flanking relate to position only. Does this mean that a rogue can deal her sneak attack damage when making a ranged attack in the flanking position?


Ssyvan wrote:

I don't have the CRB in front of me so I can't format this properly with page numbers and stuff.

The Rogue's Sneak Attack mentions that when the rogue flanks her target she deals the extra damage. Flanking only mentions a bonus when making melee attacks, but the rules for determining when you're flanking relate to position only. Does this mean that a rogue can deal her sneak attack damage when making a ranged attack in the flanking position?

To be honest, this functionally isn't really any different than the Gang Up feat FAQ.

The only real question is whether the Snap Shot chain of feats was intended to actually allow flanking at range, since you can now threaten with a ranged weapon. Threatening is intertwined with flanking so there's an argument to be made. In my opinion, as things stand right now the Snap Shot chain still does not allow flanking because flanking requires a melee attack and that chain does nothing to create an exception. However, I can see a fair argument for the underlying intent to do precisely that, though as I said I do not think it is correct.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Remy has the right of this.

There is a difference between "flanking" and receiving a "flanking bonus". Sneak Attacks require "flanking", not the "flanking bonus" that's granted to melee attacks because you are "flanking".

Lantern Lodge

"pokes head around"

MARTIALS CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!

"runs away"

(I joke, naturally :P)


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Remy has the right of this.

There is a difference between "flanking" and receiving a "flanking bonus". Sneak Attacks require "flanking", not the "flanking bonus" that's granted to melee attacks because you are "flanking".

So a Rogue with a bow adjacent to an enemy can always sneak attack, since a bow can be used as an improvised melee weapon which you can threaten with.

Lantern Lodge

fretgod99 wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Remy has the right of this.

There is a difference between "flanking" and receiving a "flanking bonus". Sneak Attacks require "flanking", not the "flanking bonus" that's granted to melee attacks because you are "flanking".

So a Rogue with a bow adjacent to an enemy can always sneak attack, since a bow can be used as an improvised melee weapon which you can threaten with.

Bows being used as improvised weapons have their own little thread, right?


fretgod99 wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Remy has the right of this.

There is a difference between "flanking" and receiving a "flanking bonus". Sneak Attacks require "flanking", not the "flanking bonus" that's granted to melee attacks because you are "flanking".

So a Rogue with a bow adjacent to an enemy can always sneak attack, since a bow can be used as an improvised melee weapon which you can threaten with.

The only relation that threatening has to flanking is that the creature helping you get a flanking bonus must be threatening. There is no mention about you threatening so using a bow improvised or not is irrelevant.

EDIT: In other words, we can all agree that if you hit someone with an unarmed strike (and you don't have improved unarmed strike) you get a +2 Flanking Bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssyvan wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Remy has the right of this.

There is a difference between "flanking" and receiving a "flanking bonus". Sneak Attacks require "flanking", not the "flanking bonus" that's granted to melee attacks because you are "flanking".

So a Rogue with a bow adjacent to an enemy can always sneak attack, since a bow can be used as an improvised melee weapon which you can threaten with.

The only relation that threatening has to flanking is that the creature helping you get a flanking bonus must be threatening. There is no mention about you threatening so using a bow improvised or not is irrelevant.

EDIT: In other words, we can all agree that if you hit someone with an unarmed strike (and you don't have improved unarmed strike) you get a +2 Flanking Bonus.

My apologies. The ally granting the ranged weapon armed rogue is wielding only a bow as well. So the rogue gets sneak attack on all of his/her attacks with the ranged weapon (just without the +2 bonus)? Aside from that, it was actually a reference to Remy's position on the original question, that as long as you are threatening with a melee attack, you are considering flanking for any attacks that you make in the round, even all of your ranged ones.

I had more regarding how my incredulity on how the Gang Up FAQ has not completely resolved this issue for people, but it's been addressed time and again. I simply cannot understand how the answer to the question "Can I use Gang Up to flank with a ranged weapon" that was "No, ranged weapons do not benefit from the Gang Up feat" means anything other than "You cannot flank with a ranged weapon". The only thing Gang Up changes is positioning. That's it. If you cannot flank with a ranged weapon when positioning is not relevant, how can you flank with a ranged weapon when positioning is relevant? It makes no sense to me.

Lantern Lodge

@fretgod99

So, if there was an archer with snap shot, but no other way to threaten (including using the bow as an improvised weapon, that's a discussion for another thread), and a fighter on either ends of a target, would the fighter get the +2 bonus for flanking?

The answer would be yes. Why then can't said archer be considered "flanking"?


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

@fretgod99

So, if there was an archer with snap shot, but no other way to threaten (including using the bow as an improvised weapon, that's a discussion for another thread), and a fighter on either ends of a target, would the fighter get the +2 bonus for flanking?

The answer would be yes. Why then can't said archer be considered "flanking"?

Because flanking specifically refers to melee attacks.

Lantern Lodge

You've quoted that a couple times Durngrun, but the archer IS flanking, all that FAQ says is that the flanking bonus is not applied to ranged attacks.

If the archer wasn't flanking, then the fighter would get no flanking bonus.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

@fretgod99

So, if there was an archer with snap shot, but no other way to threaten (including using the bow as an improvised weapon, that's a discussion for another thread), and a fighter on either ends of a target, would the fighter get the +2 bonus for flanking?

The answer would be yes. Why then can't said archer be considered "flanking"?

Because flanking specifically refers to melee attacks.

You mean this?

CRB p197 wrote:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

Fighter is making a melee attack? Check!

Opponent threatened on its opposite border or opposite corner? Check!

The requirements are satisfied. Fighter wins a +2 bonus. Opponent is flanked.

/cevah


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

@fretgod99

So, if there was an archer with snap shot, but no other way to threaten (including using the bow as an improvised weapon, that's a discussion for another thread), and a fighter on either ends of a target, would the fighter get the +2 bonus for flanking?

The answer would be yes. Why then can't said archer be considered "flanking"?

If you'll note, I've noted that there might be an argument to be made for the intent of the Snap Shot chain. But that line of feats isn't really implicated here. If that works though, it has little if anything to do with the flanking entry or Gang Up and is entirely based on the changes created by the Snap Shot chain.


Cevah wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

@fretgod99

So, if there was an archer with snap shot, but no other way to threaten (including using the bow as an improvised weapon, that's a discussion for another thread), and a fighter on either ends of a target, would the fighter get the +2 bonus for flanking?

The answer would be yes. Why then can't said archer be considered "flanking"?

Because flanking specifically refers to melee attacks.

You mean this?

CRB p197 wrote:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

Fighter is making a melee attack? Check!

Opponent threatened on its opposite border or opposite corner? Check!

The requirements are satisfied. Fighter wins a +2 bonus. Opponent is flanked.

/cevah

I was referring to the second question. About the archer. The one Frodo didn't answer himself.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

You've quoted that a couple times Durngrun, but the archer IS flanking, all that FAQ says is that the flanking bonus is not applied to ranged attacks.

If the archer wasn't flanking, then the fighter would get no flanking bonus.

The archer isn't flanking. The archer is threatening which allows the fighter to flank. Why? Thems the rules.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
The archer isn't flanking. The archer is threatening which allows the fighter to flank. Why? Thems the rules.

Actually he would be flanking if he made a melee attack, but making a ranged attack he is only providing flanking to the fighter and he wouldn't get sneak with his ranged attack.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Cevah wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

@fretgod99

So, if there was an archer with snap shot, but no other way to threaten (including using the bow as an improvised weapon, that's a discussion for another thread), and a fighter on either ends of a target, would the fighter get the +2 bonus for flanking?

The answer would be yes. Why then can't said archer be considered "flanking"?

Because flanking specifically refers to melee attacks.

You mean this?

CRB p197 wrote:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

Fighter is making a melee attack? Check!

Opponent threatened on its opposite border or opposite corner? Check!

The requirements are satisfied. Fighter wins a +2 bonus. Opponent is flanked.

/cevah

I was referring to the second question. About the archer. The one Frodo didn't answer himself.

So you think someone can be "flanked" on only one side, even though someone else is on the other side. That is, "flanking" is not defined by position.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Cevah wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

@fretgod99

So, if there was an archer with snap shot, but no other way to threaten (including using the bow as an improvised weapon, that's a discussion for another thread), and a fighter on either ends of a target, would the fighter get the +2 bonus for flanking?

The answer would be yes. Why then can't said archer be considered "flanking"?

Because flanking specifically refers to melee attacks.

You mean this?

CRB p197 wrote:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

Fighter is making a melee attack? Check!

Opponent threatened on its opposite border or opposite corner? Check!

The requirements are satisfied. Fighter wins a +2 bonus. Opponent is flanked.

/cevah

I was referring to the second question. About the archer. The one Frodo didn't answer himself.

So you think someone can be "flanked" on only one side, even though someone else is on the other side. That is, "flanking" is not defined by position.

/cevah

I believe ranged attacks do not benefit from flanking. This includes not gaining sneak attack damage. I believe it is at least implied in the CRB and I believe the FAQ confirms it.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I believe ranged attacks do not benefit from flanking. This includes not gaining sneak attack damage. I believe it is at least implied in the CRB and I believe the FAQ confirms it.

+1


James Risner wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I believe ranged attacks do not benefit from flanking. This includes not gaining sneak attack damage. I believe it is at least implied in the CRB and I believe the FAQ confirms it.
+1

+2

Silver Crusade

Sniggevert wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I believe ranged attacks do not benefit from flanking. This includes not gaining sneak attack damage. I believe it is at least implied in the CRB and I believe the FAQ confirms it.
+1
+2

+3


FWIW, the game I'm regularly in has house-ruled to allow ranged attacks to count as flanking, as long as the person on the other side is in melee range and really threatens, and it's worked fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Sniggevert wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I believe ranged attacks do not benefit from flanking. This includes not gaining sneak attack damage. I believe it is at least implied in the CRB and I believe the FAQ confirms it.
+1
+2
+3

We have a lot of belief, on both sides. If you have not yet hit the FAQ requests, please do. They are shown on this page, up a few posts.

Thanks
/cevah


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are at least two distinctions that the archer-and-sword-user scenario presents us with.

First: I think there may be a distinction between "provides flanking" and "is flanking". It may be that the archer, by threatening from the opposite side, provides flanking benefits for the guy with the sword, but does not get flanking benefits.

Second: There is a possible distinction between "is flanking" and "gets any benefit on to-hit rolls due to flanking". You only get a +2 to hit for flanking when you are making melee attacks. However, it is conceptually possible that you still have the state "flanking" when not making melee attacks, it's just that since normally the only way it matters is a +2 bonus to melee attacks, this doesn't directly show up.

Consider, if you will, a new feat:

Tactical Labeling: When you flank an opponent, you emit a blue glow, clearly visible by those around you.

So, imagine two characters. Trixie, the Arcane Trickster, is standing on one side of an orc. Trixie is wielding a halfling sling staff, which can be used as a simple bludgeoning weapon like a club, or as a ranged weapon, and has one free hand. Frank, the Fighter, is standing on the other side of the orc. Frank is holding a longsword. Both of them have Tactical Labeling.

Which of them glows, and when?

On Frank's turn, Frank is across an orc from Trixie, who is wielding a weapon that can make melee attacks. Both threaten the orc. Frank can make a melee attack, and if he does gets the +2 bonus for flanking. So Frank is glowing blue. Is Trixie also glowing blue? Of course she is.

On Trixie's turn, what happens? If she makes a melee attack, she can use the staff-sling as a bludgeoning weapon, and gets +2 flanking and her sneak attack bonus. Frank is presumably glowing blue. If Trixie uses the sling as a ranged weapon, is she still flanking? She won't get a +2 to hit, because she's not making a melee attack. But we just established that she qualifies as flanking; all that happens when she makes a ranged attack is that she no longer gets the +2 bonus. But wait, does that mean she also loses sneak attack?

What about spells? It seems to me that if Trixie casts shocking grasp, she's making a touch attack, and that's an attack so it can crit, can deal precision damage, and so on. So it counts as flanking, right?

For my own purposes: I would give you the sneak attack, but not the +2 to hit, if you meet the listed requirements for flanking. I believe the +2 bonus is a bonus you get to melee attacks when flanking, but that flanking itself is a condition you have or don't have from positioning, threat, and feats, not from melee attacks.

So I am distinguishing between the state "flanking" and the bonus the text describes as "a +2 flanking bonus".

Sczarni

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Sniggevert wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I believe ranged attacks do not benefit from flanking. This includes not gaining sneak attack damage. I believe it is at least implied in the CRB and I believe the FAQ confirms it.
+1
+2
+3

+4.

And no need to hit any more FAQ requests as the Design Team has already answered this in a FAQ (which Dorngurn has linked to several times).

If we're only getting a limited of number of FAQs answered, I'd prefer the PDT answer questions that haven't been answered.

Lantern Lodge

Krodjin wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Sniggevert wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I believe ranged attacks do not benefit from flanking. This includes not gaining sneak attack damage. I believe it is at least implied in the CRB and I believe the FAQ confirms it.
+1
+2
+3

+4.

And no need to hit any more FAQ requests as the Design Team has already answered this in a FAQ (which Dorngurn has linked to several times).

If we're only getting a limited of number of FAQs answered, I'd prefer the PDT answer questions that haven't been answered.

It's not answered... It is appalling to see that people don't understand what is being said.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Krodjin wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Sniggevert wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I believe ranged attacks do not benefit from flanking. This includes not gaining sneak attack damage. I believe it is at least implied in the CRB and I believe the FAQ confirms it.
+1
+2
+3

+4.

And no need to hit any more FAQ requests as the Design Team has already answered this in a FAQ (which Dorngurn has linked to several times).

If we're only getting a limited of number of FAQs answered, I'd prefer the PDT answer questions that haven't been answered.

It's not answered... It is appalling to see that people don't understand what is being said.

No...I understand what you're saying. I completely disagree with it, and its interpretation, but I understand what has been stated in argument.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Sniggevert wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

+1

+2
+3
+4
It's not answered... It is appalling to see that people don't understand what is being said.
No...I understand what you're saying. I completely disagree with it

+1 (or +5 depending on your view)

I also don't agree, people do understand what you are saying. We just totally don't agree with your reading of the RAW.


Sniggevert wrote:
No...I understand what you're saying. I completely disagree with it, and its interpretation, but I understand what has been stated in argument.

I don't believe this, because it is pretty clear that the question being asked here is distinct from the question which was answered. That answer implies an answer to this one, somewhat, but strictly speaking, there's a distinction left there.


fretgod99 wrote:
Ssyvan wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Remy has the right of this.

There is a difference between "flanking" and receiving a "flanking bonus". Sneak Attacks require "flanking", not the "flanking bonus" that's granted to melee attacks because you are "flanking".

So a Rogue with a bow adjacent to an enemy can always sneak attack, since a bow can be used as an improvised melee weapon which you can threaten with.

The only relation that threatening has to flanking is that the creature helping you get a flanking bonus must be threatening. There is no mention about you threatening so using a bow improvised or not is irrelevant.

EDIT: In other words, we can all agree that if you hit someone with an unarmed strike (and you don't have improved unarmed strike) you get a +2 Flanking Bonus.

My apologies. The ally granting the ranged weapon armed rogue is wielding only a bow as well. So the rogue gets sneak attack on all of his/her attacks with the ranged weapon (just without the +2 bonus)? Aside from that, it was actually a reference to Remy's position on the original question, that as long as you are threatening with a melee attack, you are considering flanking for any attacks that you make in the round, even all of your ranged ones.

I had more regarding how my incredulity on how the Gang Up FAQ has not completely resolved this issue for people, but it's been addressed time and again. I simply cannot understand how the answer to the question "Can I use Gang Up to flank with a ranged weapon" that was "No, ranged weapons do not benefit from the Gang Up feat" means anything other than "You cannot flank with a ranged weapon". The only thing Gang Up changes is positioning. That's it. If you cannot flank with a ranged weapon when positioning is not relevant, how can you flank with a ranged weapon when positioning is relevant? It makes no sense to me.

Flanking is positional. "You cannot flank with a ranged weapon" is gibberish.

The FAQ doesn't say that, either. Because the FAQ isn't gibberish.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please tell me specifically which of these steps is wrong, and why? This is how I parse the rules, and it seems straightforward. Please be specific, I want to understand why it is being said this doesn't work.

Two of your buddies threaten an Ogre. You have Gang Up. You have Sneak Attack and are within 30ft, and about to shoot the Ogre.

Quote:
The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent.

Are you flanking? Yes. Why? Because two of your allies threaten the Ogre. That is the listed requirement to count as flanking, and the requirement is met. (And while flanking, any melee attack you make gets a handy +2 bonus to hit the target)

Quote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

Can your ranged attack count as a sneak attack? Well, so long as you flank your target it gets the listed extra damage. Are you flanking? Yes.

Quote:
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

Are you in range? Yes.

Then your attack gets sneak attack damage.


Remy Balster wrote:

Please tell me specifically which of these steps is wrong, and why? This is how I parse the rules, and it seems straightforward. Please be specific, I want to understand why it is being said this doesn't work.

Two of your buddies threaten an Ogre. You have Gang Up. You have Sneak Attack and are within 30ft, and about to shoot the Ogre.

Quote:
The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent.

Are you flanking? Yes. Why? Because two of your allies threaten the Ogre. That is the listed requirement to count as flanking, and the requirement is met. (And while flanking, any melee attack you make gets a handy +2 bonus to hit the target)

Quote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

Can your ranged attack count as a sneak attack? Well, so long as you flank your target it gets the listed extra damage. Are you flanking? Yes.

Quote:
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

Are you in range? Yes.

Then your attack gets sneak attack damage.

Except, according to the FAQ, flanking specifically refers to melee attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:
Sniggevert wrote:
No...I understand what you're saying. I completely disagree with it, and its interpretation, but I understand what has been stated in argument.
I don't believe this, because it is pretty clear that the question being asked here is distinct from the question which was answered. That answer implies an answer to this one, somewhat, but strictly speaking, there's a distinction left there.

Believe what you like. I understand the argument. Folks are saying that the second paragraph under flanking overrules and ignores the condition of "When making a melee attack" required by the first paragraph AND that Jason Bulmahn doesn't understand the basics of combat of Pathfinder because in researching and answering a spot on follow up feat he reiterates that flanking does in fact relate to a melee attack only. I disagree.

PRD Combat Section wrote:


Flanking[

This is the subsection to talk about flanking and what it means.

Quote:


When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

Statement of what flanking means in the game. Condition: making a melee attack. Followed by granted bonus and positioning required.

Quote:


When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Clarification and explanation of second half of first sentence describing more detailed analysis of how to determine required positioning. No language describing or changing base condition required.

Quote:


Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.

What happens if a larger creature tries to flank. Still no language changing base conditions required.

Quote:


Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Requirement of your flanking buddy. Flanking partner has to threaten the attacker. No change in base condition to require a melee attack by the combatant gaining flanking.

Quote:


Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.

Tiny creatures can't even flank with a melee weapon (unless it gives them reach greater than 0).

The "question" is to whether the second paragraph overrides the condition provided in the first paragraph of the section. There's nothing to imply it should, but nothing to flat out state you can't flank at range.

Now, in the APG a year later, the come out with a feat that replaces the positioning condition located in paragraph 1 AND 2 of Flanking, by replacing it with a requirement that 2 allies be threatening your target. Folks argued that this would allow flanking at range by ignore the base condition still in paragraph 1 of flanking. This was FAQ'd.

FAQ wrote:

Gang Up: Does this feat (page 161) allow you to flank a foe with ranged weapons?

The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent. The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat. (JMB, 8/13/10)

Jason specifically refutes in the FAQ that you can not flank at range, and reiterates the baseline condition that Flanking only refers to melee attacks.

So, again, the "question" or "distinction", requires you to assume that the first clause setting a base condition for Flanking in the rules set is ignored past that first paragraph of the condition AND that the Design Team doesn't understand the rules surrounding a question on how the combat mechanic works.

That about sum it up?


You can't gain flanking bonus with a ranged weapon full stop
Just read the section in the CRB under the diagram
It states that the rouge can't get flanking bonus because the only character it can draw a straight line to is over five feet away and so does not threaten the target
(not the exact text but that is the gist of it)

101 to 150 of 217 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Thrown Daggers, are they Ranged Weapons? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.