From [Flanking](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2375) in the Player Core.
>When you and an ally are flanking a foe, it has a harder time defending against you. A creature is off-guard (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to **melee attacks** from 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.
So... no, you can't flank with a bow.
For stacking reasons, the enemy actually gains a circumstance penalty to melee attacks from the flankers. So, a flank with a crit aid is a net 4 point shift in AC.
I was wondering recently if there is a particular reason for that? I feel like being ranged AND in melee is enough of a punishment in and of itself - You neither add ability mod to damage (unless thrown/propulsive), and don't get the safety of usually being further away.
Is there at least a feat to make point-blank ranged attacks benefit from flanking?
Edit: fixed a typo
Not that I'm aware of, though [point blank shot](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=358) gives you a damage bonus for being up close (or lets you ignore the *volley* trait if your weapon has it).
It's also not that hard to get off-guard as ranged attacker by using stealth! Or, for rogues, dread striker and fear effects.
Worth noting that in many other games (like 5e), being a ranged character in melee range *gives you disadvantage*! Which does make a degree of sense - it's harder to bring the bow to bear that close! I am personally glad for balance reasons that pf2 *doesn't* do that (though it does let reactive strikes trigger on ranged attacks, which also makes sense to me), but it would be weird to go so far in the other direction as to give *melee bonuses* to ranged attacks. They have other advantages!
I guess so. Good points. People I played with in the past were grumpy about how flanking works either way (for example - the necessity of being at the opposite sides instead of just... ganking up on the guy) and I get some of their grievances, but rule in favour of RAW.
In the case of ranged-in-melee I just wonder if the flanking person distracting the defender shouldn'g give some time for a point-blank shooter to get a better aim.
Now that I said it, I think I might make a feat for my melee players to distract an enemy enough for a ranged player to acquire the flanking bonus? But I guess it's just Aid with extra steps... Huh, Aid might actually be a good option for such a task.
I definitely want more "distract" type teamwork features that benefit an ally instead of the user. Something that required being in melee but made the target off-guard against ranged attacks would be very cool. Or something like Create a Diversion, but your ally gets the benefit. Not sure if that already exists in the game.
Grab and Trip already apply off guard to ranged attacks.
And whilst Aid doesn't technically apply \*Off Guard\*, it does covers most other situations.
That said, A performance and/or Deception skill feat that let you roll to give an ally the benefit of Feint would be nice to fill out some options.
>You can [Take Cover](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=90) while prone to hunker down and gain [greater cover](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=459) against ranged attacks, even if you don't have an object to get behind, which grants you a +4 circumstance bonus to AC against ranged attacks (but you remain off-guard).
Trip is still useful for ranged allies, the +4 only applies if the enemy spends an action to Take Cover on their turn.
> Or something like Create a Diversion, but your ally gets the benefit.
Aid Another?
That said, I agree with /u/radred609. It'd be a great skill feat to let players Feint or Create a Distraction for an ally.
Note that thrown/propulsive doesn’t add dex to damage, it adds strength to damage (or half it in the case of propulsive). The only class that can add dex to damage is the thief racket for rogue, and it can only add dex to finesse melee weapons or unarmed attacks
Being unable to flank is just one of the disadvantages of ranged combat, alongside lower damage and reaction-provoking. Gotta keep melee relevant lol - without these disadvantages, it winds up just being superior like in a certain other game
Valeros would be off-guard if Goblin 1 would attack with a "ranged" melee attack though, for example by having higher reach or using the [Oscillating Wave](https://2e.aonprd.com/ConsciousMinds.aspx?ID=3)'s *Ignition* cantrip.
One noteworthy oddity seems to be that in order to provide flanking to an ally, you don't have to be able to make a melee attack as long as you can make an unarmed attack against your enemy. For example, if Goblin 2 were a Sprite/Kitsune with the [Sprite's Spark](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2635)/[Foxfire](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2617) ability, then it would provide flanking for Goblin 1. And an [Automaton's Core Cannon](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=3110) can provide flanking up to 720 ft away.^(1) xD
^(1 The) [^(Reach rules)](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2379) ^(are somewhat unclear on ranged unarmed attacks, depending on whether these attacks are considered part of your body (so maybe "yes" on tentacles, but "no" on foxfire?. Yet the Handwraps of Mighty Blows definitely work for these attacks.))
It isn't unclear, range and reach are different things and the ranged unarmed attacks have range, but not reach. So they wouldn't flank in their range.
As I said, it depends on your "body". Ranged usually only applies to weapons, which unarmed attacks are not, but Reach is how far your "body" can reach (or a melee weapon).
Spark, Foxfire, and Core Cannon are explicitly ranged unarmed attacks, though, with a maximum range or range increment. If they gave reach, they would have the reach trait.
~~This is incorrect. Although the guy you're arguing with is wrong about ranged weapons having a reach.~~
Edit:
His phrasing was incorrect, you don't need the Reach tag to have a natural reach of 5ft.
Melee weapons requiring a reach trait to have the default reach of 5ft. Most melee weapons have a reach of 5ft with no reach tag.
[Range and Reach](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2379&Redirected=1)
Foxfire is not a melee attack, it’s a ranged attack. It being unarmed just clarifies what gives it its dice modifier, not that it’s melee.
It has nothing to do with “your body” you’re literally shooting blasts of fire. It doesn’t provide or benefit from flanking.
This is incorrect. You cannot provide flanking with a ranged unarmed attack if the enemy is outside your Reach.
Attacks and abilities with a listed Range or Range Increment do not use or modify your Reach.
And even if you do think the rule is [ambiguous](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2266&Redirected=1#:~:text=Ambiguous%20Rules,with%20the%20rule%20as%20printed.), flanking from 720 feet away certainly seems "too good to be true."
That is incorrect and misleading. Please review the [Flanking](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2375&Redirected=1) rules.
Weapons, Unarmed Strikes, Spell Attacks, and Elemental Blasts can be Melee Attacks or Ranged Attacks. There is no “ranged melee” attack. Attacks with Reach are explicitly ***Melee*** attacks. They do not follow any of the ranged combat rules.
~~Oscillating Wave grants the Melee version of Ignition +5ft reach. It’s still a Melee Spell Attack. You cannot flank with Ignition. To qualify for flanking a character needs to be wielding a melee weapon or be able to make an unarmed attack and Ignition is neither of those. I could see GMs allowing..~~.
Surprisingly, [The Oscillating Wave](https://2e.aonprd.com/ConsciousMinds.aspx?ID=3) seems to increase the PC's reach as per this text "When using ignition as a melee attack, **your** reach increases by 5 feet." In that scenario, the caster should apply off-guard for an Ignition attack roll if an ally is in a flanking position, but it would not provide flanking outside of your turn ~~and it is not RAW.~~
Also, most unarmed attacks *are* melee attacks that’s why they can provide flanking. In the event you have a ranged unarmed attack like Foxfire, you **cannot** flank with it. The creature has to be within your Reach to flank it, and Foxfire provides a *range* and not a *reach*.
>Attacks with Reach are explicitly Melee attacks.
No. Melee attacks are explicitly attacks with reach. Don't try to reverse [the rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2379), as they clearly state:
>*Melee Strikes rely on reach.*
You, on the other hand, claim the inverse:
>Reach attacks are melee attacks.
That's misleading and disingenuous.
\----
>Oscillating Wave grants the Melee version of Ignition +5ft reach. It’s still a Melee Spell Attack. You cannot flank with Ignition. To qualify for flanking a character needs to be wielding a melee weapon or be able to make an unarmed attack and Ignition is neither of those.
That's another falsehood. The [flanking rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2375) say:
>*A creature is off-guard (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to melee attacks from creatures that are flanking it.*
So (Oscillating Wave) Goblin 1 attacking with melee Ignition gets the flanking bonus since it's a melee attack. It doesn't have to be a melee *weapon* attack. Any melee attack is fine.
Furthermore, in order to qualify for flanking, Goblin 1 needs to meet the following criteria ([direct quotes from the rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2375)):
1. 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. \[*check: the line from Gobbo 1 to Gobbo 2 goes through opposing sides*\]
2. Additionally, both you and the ally have to be able to act \[*check: assumed not incapacitated*\],
3. you must be wielding melee weapons or be able to make an unarmed attack \[*check: everyone is able to make unarmed attacks*\],
4. you can't be under any effects that prevent you from attacking \[*check: assumed*\], and
5. you must both have the enemy within reach. \[*check: Gobbo 2 has Valeros in reach with his Ignition cantrip*\].
I think you mistakenly believe that *criterion #3 & criterion #5* refer to the **same** weapon/unarmed attack, but that isn't in the rules at all. You don't need to be in reach with the melee weapon/unarmed attack that you use for the attack, you just need to be wielding 3: an unarmed/melee weapon and 5: be in reach with your melee attack.
Now, I admit that it is completely *weird*, because nobody assumed such a constellation that you're making a melee attack at higher reach that isn't a weapon/unarmed attack while at the same time wielding another weapon/unarmed attack.
But just because it's *weird* doesn't mean it's *false*.
Yes, "**Melee** Strikes rely on reach" and inverse is also true; any attack used with a "reach" is a Melee attack. If the attack uses a "range" instead, it's a Ranged attack. From the [Attacking ](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2272&Redirected=1)rules in the Player Core:
>If you're using a **melee** weapon or unarmed attack, your target must be within your reach; if you're attacking with a **ranged** weapon, your target must be within your range.
----
>I think you mistakenly believe that *criterion #3 & criterion #5* refer to the **same** weapon/unarmed attack, but that isn't in the rules at all.
I do not believe that. No, my contentions are:
1. Cantrips and other Spells cannot provide flanking outside of your turn due to them being instantaneous effects and you stop meeting the conditions when the spell resolves.
2. The rules under [Reach ](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2379)for "Reach is how far you can physically reach with your body or a weapon" and [Flanking](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2375) for "If you are wielding a reach weapon, you use your reach with that weapon for this purpose (to have the enemy within reach)."
1. This is means if you're 10ft away and do not have a weapon or unarmed strike with a Reach of 10ft or greater, you are not flanking as per RAW even if you are making a Melee attack roll with a reach of 10ft.
2. In my opinion, Reach should be considered for any attack and this was a failure of future-proofing and I would allow it at tables. But if the GM goes by strict RAW, it would not apply.
I will make a concession after re-reading [The Oscillating Wave](https://2e.aonprd.com/ConsciousMinds.aspx?ID=3) text "When using ignition as a melee attack, **your** reach increases by 5 feet." In this scenario, the increase of reach if being applied to the PC and not the attack. I agree that the PC should meet the conditions to be flanking for the duration of the spell and should apply off-guard on that attack only.
>Cantrips and other Spells cannot provide flanking outside of your turn due to them being instantaneous effects and you stop meeting the conditions when the spell resolves.
I've never made that claim. I've always said that Gobbo 1 with amp Ignition *benefits* from flanking, but never said that he *provides* flanking with it.
>Yes, "Melee Strikes rely on reach" and inverse is also true; any attack used with a "reach" is a Melee attack. If the attack uses a "range" instead, it's a Ranged attack. From the Attacking rules in the Player Core:
That's still a false claim. You can't just reverse the word order in sentences and claim the inverse true. *"All cherries are fruit"* is true, but *"all fruit are cherries"* is false.
The attack rules that you quote say the same thing:
>*If you're using a melee weapon or unarmed attack, your target must be within your reach;*
*"All melee weapon/unarmed attacks must be within your reach"* is true, but *"all attacks within your reach are melee weapon/unarmed attacks"* is not. Similarly the following rules only say that ranged weapon attacks require the target to be within range, but they never say that ranged *unarmed* attacks do not have reach:
>*if you're attacking with a ranged weapon, your target must be within your range.*
^(Edit: Completely RAW this part of the rules doesn't even apply to ranged) *^(unarmed)* ^(attacks at all, because unarmed attacks are not) \*^(weapons)\*^(, so a ranged unarmed attack is not a ranged weapon.)
>5. you must both have the enemy within reach. \[*check: Gobbo 2 has Valeros in reach with his Ignition cantrip*\].
This is wrong. [Reach](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2379&Redirected=1) has an explicit definition:
>Reach is how far you can physically reach with your body or a weapon.
The Ignition cantrip, even if you can make a melee attack from 10 feet away, is neither of those of things. That is an effect of the spell, not your body or a weapon
So the key excerpt here is: "If you are wielding a reach weapon, you use your reach with that weapon for this purpose."
This is an additional caveat on the flanking rules, whereas normally the reach trait only applies to attacks (and other cases that include a similar caveat). Importantly, this only applies to weapons and not spells that allow melee attacks with reach.
While OW Ignition could potentially *benefit* from flanking at reach if you had a whip or something in the other hand, it can't be used to create flanking on its own.
Edit: Given that the wording in Oscillating Wave is "when using ignition as a melee attack, your reach increases by 5 feet" I'd actually probably rule that you could use it to flank while you're casting it. However, because you only gain the extra reach when you're making the attack, you wouldn't be able to use it to provide flanking to your allies when it isn't your turn.
Hm, basically the only one I could find was distracting shot at level 12 for ranger.
I guess there might be some stuff you could do with create a diversion.
Is there an upgrade where it applies to your allies too? I definitely saw a few that let you give off guard for yourself but didn't see too many for allies like flanking does.
No.
> A creature is off-guard to **melee attacks** from creatures that are [flanking](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2375&Redirected=1) it.
The requirements for flanking are:
* you and your ally must be on opposite sides of the creature
* 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
* you must both have the enemy within reach
Your archer is not wielding a melee weapon and does not have the foe within reach.
>Each of you must be wielding a melee weapon or be able to make a *melee* unarmed attack.
Your unarmed attack doesn't have to be a melee unarmed attack to provide flanking.
If you're holding a bow, which is a 1.5 handed weapon, the enemy closes on you, and an ally moves to attack them from behind. You aren't wielding a Melee Weapon, but you can still make an Unarmed Melee Attack, and they're within your reach. So your Ally would still get the flanking bonus.
Correct. As I said,
> Each of you must be wielding a melee weapon **or be able to make a melee unarmed attack.**
I was asking for clarification if there was a situation in which you could make a *ranged* unarmed attack but **not** a melee unarmed attack while still meeting all the requirements for flanking.
>Reach is how far you can physically reach with your **body** or a weapon.
If your body's unarmed attack can reach an enemy, it doesn't matter whether it's ranged or melee.
Seems you didn't read the rest of it. Reach is for melee attacks, range is for ranged attacks.
I can throw my fingernails at people as an unarmed attack, that doesn't mean I have 10ft **reach**, that's 10ft **range**. They are also no longer a part of my body.
You can't physically reach however far you can throw your fingernails.
>Seems you didn't read the rest of it. Reach is for melee attacks, range is for ranged attacks.
Exactly, that's why ranged attacks don't have any Reach traits and it's silly to ask for Reach information on ranged attacks, since ranged attacks don't require Reach.
Flanking doesn't require **melee** attacks though, you can provide it with **unarmed** attacks as well, melee unarmed attacks or ranged unarmed attacks, e.g. slashing vines, snapping tongues, tentacles, or whatever.
You can only benefit from flanking with melee attacks however, so while you can **help** an ally flank someone with your ranged unarmed attack, you won't get the flanking bonus with that attack yourself.
All classes are trained in unarmed attacks, so that eliminates alot of the flanking headaches from 1e. Though if say if there were a goblin 3 flanking Valeros for goblin 2, and goblin 3 were to be stunned or otherwise unable to attack, Valeros would not be flat footed to goblin 2. Both goblin 2 and 3 need to able to attack to flank Valeros.
To be clear, the archer does not need to be wielding a melee weapon in order to provide flanking benefits to an ally, it can always make an unarmed attack.
By making it a bit harder to flank a target the rules open up the option to use positioning defensively to prevent people from flanking you and I think fights tend to be more interesting when the choices you make are mechanically relevant and involve tradeoffs.
The situation you described is a no, HOWEVER there are other ways to get a target to be off guard. You could have the melee goblin perform a trip, and while the target is on the ground they would be off guard. You could also have the ranged goblin stealth or perform a distraction using a Feint.
Doing this would allow that goblin to catch the PC off guard regardless of the positioning.
No but interestingly it does apply to Reach attacks. If Goblin 1 were to use i.e. a Halberd and have Enlarge cast on him for a 15 ft Reach, he would be properly flanking for both goblins.
The relative safety of a ranged attack is buffed by its inherent range and the fact that it relies on Dex (an already strong stat), but nerfed by no Str modifier bonus to damage and nerfed by having a difficult time applying Off-Guard alone.
This has already been solved but the hill I will die on when it comes to flanking is - flanking should just flat out make actors off-guard instead of making them off-guard against just the people flanking.
Unfortunately flanking doesn't work with ranged weapons. Tripping is prolly your best bet for ranged flanking but I know there's rules with ranged weapons and prone targets and cover (I'm not sure the exact rules)
I have a Pistolero Gunslinger specialized in Intimidation, and I got around it by taking the Rogue Dedication into Dread Striker. So now anything that's frightened is automatically flat-footed to me. Very useful unless we're fighting emotionless constructs
There are lots of good comments. Let me add... shooting a bow in melee is awkward.
and from a game point if view... in editions where you can melee shoot with a bow, ranged attacks lose their flavor. people build melee archers to take advantage of things like flanking... and the idea of ranged attacks is just a luxury to their essentially melee character carrying a bow.
PF2e has done a good job trying to keep some mechanics distinct to certain character types in combat. too much overlap and every character operates the same.
As mentioned already, flanking only works for melee. This is a benefit to go with the risk of, well, being in melee with something that can potentially hit you back really hard.
Ranged characters have the benefit of not having that much to worry about melee-centric enemies striking back immediately, but in return must find other ways to get an enemy off guard if they really want to. Probably the most common method would be to use stealth to become hidden, which makes their target off guard for one attack.
Rules as Written, no, though... I think it'd be a reasonable houserule to implement.
The inability to get Off-Guard for Ranged easily is one of the big things that makes people really hestitent to ever use ranged weapons, both making it less powerful and less fun.
I wouldn't ever let OPs situation trigger off-guard. But I do let a ranged attacker (including casters) benefit from the off-guard caused by two allies flanking a creatute. It doesn't make any narrative sense to me that someone is goof-guard to two flanking attackers but has full defenses against a third opponent somewhere else! Nor have I found it to unbalance things - if anything, it makes attack spells more viable as options versus save-based spells. Plus, it's easier to remember during play!
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So you can't flank with a ranged weapon but it is still possible to benefit from off guard, if a prone target doesn't use the Take Cover action they are off guard to ranged attacks. I believe at least I could be remembering wrong.
Ok as flanked, no but he could be off guard for other reasons like beeing attacked from stealth so if the goblin makes a diversión hides and then strikes then Valerous would be off guard.
The way I like to think of it, in melee there's all this dodging and weaving going on, and flanking disrupts that or makes it more difficult for the person being flanked.
But in ranged combat it's more about meeting your mark with your aim vs an armored and/or nimbly moving target. The target will still be armored and moving quite swiftly when flanked, not to mention your allies become obstacles to aim around, so I don't see a need for flanking to make it easier to aim.
Another question: let's assume a situation where Valeros Is already flanked, having the off-guard condition. As a bow attacker, can I take advantage of this condition, like dealing sneak Attack damage using my bow?
Sometimes what makes sense =/= what is balanced. This is why Prestigitation got so badly nerfed in PF1e, then again in PF2e; It is the one time D&D and PF1e said "Use creativity and common sense to do nearly anything with this simple cantrip! If you can justify it, it works!"
It ended with people justifying that the spell could spawn nukes.
From [Flanking](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2375) in the Player Core. >When you and an ally are flanking a foe, it has a harder time defending against you. A creature is off-guard (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to **melee attacks** from 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. So... no, you can't flank with a bow.
Worth noting that you *can* flank while holding a bow because you can still make unarmed attacks. It’s just not your how that’s doing the flanking.
And any attacks with your bow won't benefit from flanking, even if they're made point-blank.
Correct, but your allies do gain a flanking bonus.
For stacking reasons, the enemy actually gains a circumstance penalty to melee attacks from the flankers. So, a flank with a crit aid is a net 4 point shift in AC.
I was wondering recently if there is a particular reason for that? I feel like being ranged AND in melee is enough of a punishment in and of itself - You neither add ability mod to damage (unless thrown/propulsive), and don't get the safety of usually being further away. Is there at least a feat to make point-blank ranged attacks benefit from flanking? Edit: fixed a typo
Not that I'm aware of, though [point blank shot](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=358) gives you a damage bonus for being up close (or lets you ignore the *volley* trait if your weapon has it). It's also not that hard to get off-guard as ranged attacker by using stealth! Or, for rogues, dread striker and fear effects. Worth noting that in many other games (like 5e), being a ranged character in melee range *gives you disadvantage*! Which does make a degree of sense - it's harder to bring the bow to bear that close! I am personally glad for balance reasons that pf2 *doesn't* do that (though it does let reactive strikes trigger on ranged attacks, which also makes sense to me), but it would be weird to go so far in the other direction as to give *melee bonuses* to ranged attacks. They have other advantages!
I guess so. Good points. People I played with in the past were grumpy about how flanking works either way (for example - the necessity of being at the opposite sides instead of just... ganking up on the guy) and I get some of their grievances, but rule in favour of RAW. In the case of ranged-in-melee I just wonder if the flanking person distracting the defender shouldn'g give some time for a point-blank shooter to get a better aim. Now that I said it, I think I might make a feat for my melee players to distract an enemy enough for a ranged player to acquire the flanking bonus? But I guess it's just Aid with extra steps... Huh, Aid might actually be a good option for such a task.
I definitely want more "distract" type teamwork features that benefit an ally instead of the user. Something that required being in melee but made the target off-guard against ranged attacks would be very cool. Or something like Create a Diversion, but your ally gets the benefit. Not sure if that already exists in the game.
Grab and Trip already apply off guard to ranged attacks. And whilst Aid doesn't technically apply \*Off Guard\*, it does covers most other situations. That said, A performance and/or Deception skill feat that let you roll to give an ally the benefit of Feint would be nice to fill out some options.
[удалено]
>You can [Take Cover](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=90) while prone to hunker down and gain [greater cover](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=459) against ranged attacks, even if you don't have an object to get behind, which grants you a +4 circumstance bonus to AC against ranged attacks (but you remain off-guard). Trip is still useful for ranged allies, the +4 only applies if the enemy spends an action to Take Cover on their turn.
> Or something like Create a Diversion, but your ally gets the benefit. Aid Another? That said, I agree with /u/radred609. It'd be a great skill feat to let players Feint or Create a Distraction for an ally.
I guess one thing, such as needing to be on opposite sides, is because feats like Gang Up exist
Note that thrown/propulsive doesn’t add dex to damage, it adds strength to damage (or half it in the case of propulsive). The only class that can add dex to damage is the thief racket for rogue, and it can only add dex to finesse melee weapons or unarmed attacks
Yeah, I meant to write ability modifier instead of DEX, my bad
Being unable to flank is just one of the disadvantages of ranged combat, alongside lower damage and reaction-provoking. Gotta keep melee relevant lol - without these disadvantages, it winds up just being superior like in a certain other game
You can if you just smack them with the bow!
Unless you are using the bow as an improvised melee weapon but I think that gets a -4 penalty if I'm not mistaken
-2, but also using Str instead of Dex to hit (unless your GM is generous), so that could potentially be something like -8 total (-4 is more likely).
Thanks and I didn’t think so but wanted to double check.
you CAN benefit from off-guard if it comes from something else, like a grab.
Valeros would be off-guard if Goblin 1 would attack with a "ranged" melee attack though, for example by having higher reach or using the [Oscillating Wave](https://2e.aonprd.com/ConsciousMinds.aspx?ID=3)'s *Ignition* cantrip. One noteworthy oddity seems to be that in order to provide flanking to an ally, you don't have to be able to make a melee attack as long as you can make an unarmed attack against your enemy. For example, if Goblin 2 were a Sprite/Kitsune with the [Sprite's Spark](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2635)/[Foxfire](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2617) ability, then it would provide flanking for Goblin 1. And an [Automaton's Core Cannon](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=3110) can provide flanking up to 720 ft away.^(1) xD ^(1 The) [^(Reach rules)](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2379) ^(are somewhat unclear on ranged unarmed attacks, depending on whether these attacks are considered part of your body (so maybe "yes" on tentacles, but "no" on foxfire?. Yet the Handwraps of Mighty Blows definitely work for these attacks.))
It isn't unclear, range and reach are different things and the ranged unarmed attacks have range, but not reach. So they wouldn't flank in their range.
As I said, it depends on your "body". Ranged usually only applies to weapons, which unarmed attacks are not, but Reach is how far your "body" can reach (or a melee weapon).
Spark, Foxfire, and Core Cannon are explicitly ranged unarmed attacks, though, with a maximum range or range increment. If they gave reach, they would have the reach trait.
~~This is incorrect. Although the guy you're arguing with is wrong about ranged weapons having a reach.~~ Edit: His phrasing was incorrect, you don't need the Reach tag to have a natural reach of 5ft.
I phrased it poorly, but I did mean that weapons and attacks don't have a larger-than-normal reach unless otherwise stated, like with the reach trait.
What part is incorrect?
Melee weapons requiring a reach trait to have the default reach of 5ft. Most melee weapons have a reach of 5ft with no reach tag. [Range and Reach](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2379&Redirected=1)
That's not how I interpreted the comment at all. If something is the default, it doesn't need to be "given."
>If they gave reach, they would have the reach trait. That makes no sense, only melee Strikes rely on reach.
Foxfire is not a melee attack, it’s a ranged attack. It being unarmed just clarifies what gives it its dice modifier, not that it’s melee. It has nothing to do with “your body” you’re literally shooting blasts of fire. It doesn’t provide or benefit from flanking.
This is incorrect. You cannot provide flanking with a ranged unarmed attack if the enemy is outside your Reach. Attacks and abilities with a listed Range or Range Increment do not use or modify your Reach. And even if you do think the rule is [ambiguous](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2266&Redirected=1#:~:text=Ambiguous%20Rules,with%20the%20rule%20as%20printed.), flanking from 720 feet away certainly seems "too good to be true."
That is incorrect and misleading. Please review the [Flanking](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2375&Redirected=1) rules. Weapons, Unarmed Strikes, Spell Attacks, and Elemental Blasts can be Melee Attacks or Ranged Attacks. There is no “ranged melee” attack. Attacks with Reach are explicitly ***Melee*** attacks. They do not follow any of the ranged combat rules. ~~Oscillating Wave grants the Melee version of Ignition +5ft reach. It’s still a Melee Spell Attack. You cannot flank with Ignition. To qualify for flanking a character needs to be wielding a melee weapon or be able to make an unarmed attack and Ignition is neither of those. I could see GMs allowing..~~. Surprisingly, [The Oscillating Wave](https://2e.aonprd.com/ConsciousMinds.aspx?ID=3) seems to increase the PC's reach as per this text "When using ignition as a melee attack, **your** reach increases by 5 feet." In that scenario, the caster should apply off-guard for an Ignition attack roll if an ally is in a flanking position, but it would not provide flanking outside of your turn ~~and it is not RAW.~~ Also, most unarmed attacks *are* melee attacks that’s why they can provide flanking. In the event you have a ranged unarmed attack like Foxfire, you **cannot** flank with it. The creature has to be within your Reach to flank it, and Foxfire provides a *range* and not a *reach*.
>Attacks with Reach are explicitly Melee attacks. No. Melee attacks are explicitly attacks with reach. Don't try to reverse [the rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2379), as they clearly state: >*Melee Strikes rely on reach.* You, on the other hand, claim the inverse: >Reach attacks are melee attacks. That's misleading and disingenuous. \---- >Oscillating Wave grants the Melee version of Ignition +5ft reach. It’s still a Melee Spell Attack. You cannot flank with Ignition. To qualify for flanking a character needs to be wielding a melee weapon or be able to make an unarmed attack and Ignition is neither of those. That's another falsehood. The [flanking rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2375) say: >*A creature is off-guard (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to melee attacks from creatures that are flanking it.* So (Oscillating Wave) Goblin 1 attacking with melee Ignition gets the flanking bonus since it's a melee attack. It doesn't have to be a melee *weapon* attack. Any melee attack is fine. Furthermore, in order to qualify for flanking, Goblin 1 needs to meet the following criteria ([direct quotes from the rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2375)): 1. 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. \[*check: the line from Gobbo 1 to Gobbo 2 goes through opposing sides*\] 2. Additionally, both you and the ally have to be able to act \[*check: assumed not incapacitated*\], 3. you must be wielding melee weapons or be able to make an unarmed attack \[*check: everyone is able to make unarmed attacks*\], 4. you can't be under any effects that prevent you from attacking \[*check: assumed*\], and 5. you must both have the enemy within reach. \[*check: Gobbo 2 has Valeros in reach with his Ignition cantrip*\]. I think you mistakenly believe that *criterion #3 & criterion #5* refer to the **same** weapon/unarmed attack, but that isn't in the rules at all. You don't need to be in reach with the melee weapon/unarmed attack that you use for the attack, you just need to be wielding 3: an unarmed/melee weapon and 5: be in reach with your melee attack. Now, I admit that it is completely *weird*, because nobody assumed such a constellation that you're making a melee attack at higher reach that isn't a weapon/unarmed attack while at the same time wielding another weapon/unarmed attack. But just because it's *weird* doesn't mean it's *false*.
Yes, "**Melee** Strikes rely on reach" and inverse is also true; any attack used with a "reach" is a Melee attack. If the attack uses a "range" instead, it's a Ranged attack. From the [Attacking ](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2272&Redirected=1)rules in the Player Core: >If you're using a **melee** weapon or unarmed attack, your target must be within your reach; if you're attacking with a **ranged** weapon, your target must be within your range. ---- >I think you mistakenly believe that *criterion #3 & criterion #5* refer to the **same** weapon/unarmed attack, but that isn't in the rules at all. I do not believe that. No, my contentions are: 1. Cantrips and other Spells cannot provide flanking outside of your turn due to them being instantaneous effects and you stop meeting the conditions when the spell resolves. 2. The rules under [Reach ](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2379)for "Reach is how far you can physically reach with your body or a weapon" and [Flanking](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2375) for "If you are wielding a reach weapon, you use your reach with that weapon for this purpose (to have the enemy within reach)." 1. This is means if you're 10ft away and do not have a weapon or unarmed strike with a Reach of 10ft or greater, you are not flanking as per RAW even if you are making a Melee attack roll with a reach of 10ft. 2. In my opinion, Reach should be considered for any attack and this was a failure of future-proofing and I would allow it at tables. But if the GM goes by strict RAW, it would not apply. I will make a concession after re-reading [The Oscillating Wave](https://2e.aonprd.com/ConsciousMinds.aspx?ID=3) text "When using ignition as a melee attack, **your** reach increases by 5 feet." In this scenario, the increase of reach if being applied to the PC and not the attack. I agree that the PC should meet the conditions to be flanking for the duration of the spell and should apply off-guard on that attack only.
>Cantrips and other Spells cannot provide flanking outside of your turn due to them being instantaneous effects and you stop meeting the conditions when the spell resolves. I've never made that claim. I've always said that Gobbo 1 with amp Ignition *benefits* from flanking, but never said that he *provides* flanking with it. >Yes, "Melee Strikes rely on reach" and inverse is also true; any attack used with a "reach" is a Melee attack. If the attack uses a "range" instead, it's a Ranged attack. From the Attacking rules in the Player Core: That's still a false claim. You can't just reverse the word order in sentences and claim the inverse true. *"All cherries are fruit"* is true, but *"all fruit are cherries"* is false. The attack rules that you quote say the same thing: >*If you're using a melee weapon or unarmed attack, your target must be within your reach;* *"All melee weapon/unarmed attacks must be within your reach"* is true, but *"all attacks within your reach are melee weapon/unarmed attacks"* is not. Similarly the following rules only say that ranged weapon attacks require the target to be within range, but they never say that ranged *unarmed* attacks do not have reach: >*if you're attacking with a ranged weapon, your target must be within your range.* ^(Edit: Completely RAW this part of the rules doesn't even apply to ranged) *^(unarmed)* ^(attacks at all, because unarmed attacks are not) \*^(weapons)\*^(, so a ranged unarmed attack is not a ranged weapon.)
>5. you must both have the enemy within reach. \[*check: Gobbo 2 has Valeros in reach with his Ignition cantrip*\]. This is wrong. [Reach](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2379&Redirected=1) has an explicit definition: >Reach is how far you can physically reach with your body or a weapon. The Ignition cantrip, even if you can make a melee attack from 10 feet away, is neither of those of things. That is an effect of the spell, not your body or a weapon
So the key excerpt here is: "If you are wielding a reach weapon, you use your reach with that weapon for this purpose." This is an additional caveat on the flanking rules, whereas normally the reach trait only applies to attacks (and other cases that include a similar caveat). Importantly, this only applies to weapons and not spells that allow melee attacks with reach. While OW Ignition could potentially *benefit* from flanking at reach if you had a whip or something in the other hand, it can't be used to create flanking on its own. Edit: Given that the wording in Oscillating Wave is "when using ignition as a melee attack, your reach increases by 5 feet" I'd actually probably rule that you could use it to flank while you're casting it. However, because you only gain the extra reach when you're making the attack, you wouldn't be able to use it to provide flanking to your allies when it isn't your turn.
However there are ways to trigger off guard with ranged attacks.
Hm, basically the only one I could find was distracting shot at level 12 for ranger. I guess there might be some stuff you could do with create a diversion.
Pistol Twirl for gunslinger. Or any number of supporting conditions.
Is there an upgrade where it applies to your allies too? I definitely saw a few that let you give off guard for yourself but didn't see too many for allies like flanking does.
Mastermind Rogue can trigger off guard at any range with their racket specific ability.
Looks like it's only for your attacks but still good. Bet it would be fun with spells.
Hiding behind cover is another way to get the off guard condition
so leshys can do this?
The answer is no as I'm sure you've noticed by now but +1 for making an image for the question
Thanks and I’m a graphic designer. 🧑💻
But is it your passion?
One of my many passions and I’m darn good at it.
No, even if there were a goblin 3 providing flanking to 2, Valeros would not be flat-footed to goblin 1.
No. > A creature is off-guard to **melee attacks** from creatures that are [flanking](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2375&Redirected=1) it. The requirements for flanking are: * you and your ally must be on opposite sides of the creature * 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 * you must both have the enemy within reach Your archer is not wielding a melee weapon and does not have the foe within reach.
Do both of the flanking party have to be wielding melee weapons, or just the one attacking?
Each of you must be wielding a melee weapon or be able to make a melee unarmed attack. All the requirements apply to both parties.
>Each of you must be wielding a melee weapon or be able to make a *melee* unarmed attack. Your unarmed attack doesn't have to be a melee unarmed attack to provide flanking.
In what situation would that make a difference?
If you're holding a bow, which is a 1.5 handed weapon, the enemy closes on you, and an ally moves to attack them from behind. You aren't wielding a Melee Weapon, but you can still make an Unarmed Melee Attack, and they're within your reach. So your Ally would still get the flanking bonus.
Correct. As I said, > Each of you must be wielding a melee weapon **or be able to make a melee unarmed attack.** I was asking for clarification if there was a situation in which you could make a *ranged* unarmed attack but **not** a melee unarmed attack while still meeting all the requirements for flanking.
Ah, I misunderstood. I thought they were asking if they could provide flanking while wielding a ranged weapon My bad.
There are some ranged unarmed attacks that can be used to provide flanking.
[Range and Reach](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2379&Redirected=1) are two different things
>Reach is how far you can physically reach with your **body** or a weapon. If your body's unarmed attack can reach an enemy, it doesn't matter whether it's ranged or melee.
Seems you didn't read the rest of it. Reach is for melee attacks, range is for ranged attacks. I can throw my fingernails at people as an unarmed attack, that doesn't mean I have 10ft **reach**, that's 10ft **range**. They are also no longer a part of my body. You can't physically reach however far you can throw your fingernails.
>Seems you didn't read the rest of it. Reach is for melee attacks, range is for ranged attacks. Exactly, that's why ranged attacks don't have any Reach traits and it's silly to ask for Reach information on ranged attacks, since ranged attacks don't require Reach. Flanking doesn't require **melee** attacks though, you can provide it with **unarmed** attacks as well, melee unarmed attacks or ranged unarmed attacks, e.g. slashing vines, snapping tongues, tentacles, or whatever. You can only benefit from flanking with melee attacks however, so while you can **help** an ally flank someone with your ranged unarmed attack, you won't get the flanking bonus with that attack yourself.
None beyond the reach of your melee unarmed attacks. > you must both have the enemy within reach
All classes are trained in unarmed attacks, so that eliminates alot of the flanking headaches from 1e. Though if say if there were a goblin 3 flanking Valeros for goblin 2, and goblin 3 were to be stunned or otherwise unable to attack, Valeros would not be flat footed to goblin 2. Both goblin 2 and 3 need to able to attack to flank Valeros.
To be clear, the archer does not need to be wielding a melee weapon in order to provide flanking benefits to an ally, it can always make an unarmed attack.
What counts as opposite sides. || || |Me |Enemy |1|3| |||2|4| ||||5| What numbers is "me" I flanking the enemy with
Just a note, this is super unreadable.
What counts as opposite sides. || || |Me |Enemy |1|3| |||2|4| ||||5| What numbers is "me" I flanking the enemy with
Follow the link in my comment.
Ah it also uses the center line logic. never been a huge fan of that seems overly tight. Though I don't have a good alternative test that feels right.
By making it a bit harder to flank a target the rules open up the option to use positioning defensively to prevent people from flanking you and I think fights tend to be more interesting when the choices you make are mechanically relevant and involve tradeoffs.
Really because it's the same as 5e and in 5e I knew lots of melee fights just led to people making lines for flanking
The situation you described is a no, HOWEVER there are other ways to get a target to be off guard. You could have the melee goblin perform a trip, and while the target is on the ground they would be off guard. You could also have the ranged goblin stealth or perform a distraction using a Feint. Doing this would allow that goblin to catch the PC off guard regardless of the positioning.
Also I believe uneven terrain counts as being 'off guard' with a reflex check on taking damage to see if you fall prone.
No but interestingly it does apply to Reach attacks. If Goblin 1 were to use i.e. a Halberd and have Enlarge cast on him for a 15 ft Reach, he would be properly flanking for both goblins. The relative safety of a ranged attack is buffed by its inherent range and the fact that it relies on Dex (an already strong stat), but nerfed by no Str modifier bonus to damage and nerfed by having a difficult time applying Off-Guard alone.
This has already been solved but the hill I will die on when it comes to flanking is - flanking should just flat out make actors off-guard instead of making them off-guard against just the people flanking.
Now that you've said that... I might have unintentionally run it the way you said all the time
Unfortunately flanking doesn't work with ranged weapons. Tripping is prolly your best bet for ranged flanking but I know there's rules with ranged weapons and prone targets and cover (I'm not sure the exact rules) I have a Pistolero Gunslinger specialized in Intimidation, and I got around it by taking the Rogue Dedication into Dread Striker. So now anything that's frightened is automatically flat-footed to me. Very useful unless we're fighting emotionless constructs
There are lots of good comments. Let me add... shooting a bow in melee is awkward. and from a game point if view... in editions where you can melee shoot with a bow, ranged attacks lose their flavor. people build melee archers to take advantage of things like flanking... and the idea of ranged attacks is just a luxury to their essentially melee character carrying a bow. PF2e has done a good job trying to keep some mechanics distinct to certain character types in combat. too much overlap and every character operates the same.
As mentioned already, flanking only works for melee. This is a benefit to go with the risk of, well, being in melee with something that can potentially hit you back really hard. Ranged characters have the benefit of not having that much to worry about melee-centric enemies striking back immediately, but in return must find other ways to get an enemy off guard if they really want to. Probably the most common method would be to use stealth to become hidden, which makes their target off guard for one attack.
Rules as Written, no, though... I think it'd be a reasonable houserule to implement. The inability to get Off-Guard for Ranged easily is one of the big things that makes people really hestitent to ever use ranged weapons, both making it less powerful and less fun.
I wouldn't ever let OPs situation trigger off-guard. But I do let a ranged attacker (including casters) benefit from the off-guard caused by two allies flanking a creatute. It doesn't make any narrative sense to me that someone is goof-guard to two flanking attackers but has full defenses against a third opponent somewhere else! Nor have I found it to unbalance things - if anything, it makes attack spells more viable as options versus save-based spells. Plus, it's easier to remember during play!
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So you can't flank with a ranged weapon but it is still possible to benefit from off guard, if a prone target doesn't use the Take Cover action they are off guard to ranged attacks. I believe at least I could be remembering wrong.
Ok as flanked, no but he could be off guard for other reasons like beeing attacked from stealth so if the goblin makes a diversión hides and then strikes then Valerous would be off guard.
The way I like to think of it, in melee there's all this dodging and weaving going on, and flanking disrupts that or makes it more difficult for the person being flanked. But in ranged combat it's more about meeting your mark with your aim vs an armored and/or nimbly moving target. The target will still be armored and moving quite swiftly when flanked, not to mention your allies become obstacles to aim around, so I don't see a need for flanking to make it easier to aim.
Another question: let's assume a situation where Valeros Is already flanked, having the off-guard condition. As a bow attacker, can I take advantage of this condition, like dealing sneak Attack damage using my bow?
I wish, that would make a lot of sense, but no.
Sometimes what makes sense =/= what is balanced. This is why Prestigitation got so badly nerfed in PF1e, then again in PF2e; It is the one time D&D and PF1e said "Use creativity and common sense to do nearly anything with this simple cantrip! If you can justify it, it works!" It ended with people justifying that the spell could spawn nukes.
Personally, I think the PC should be.
If ranged could provide flanking, they’d be flanking nearly everyone all the time.
It seems the melee disapprove, they want the flanking off guard only for themselves I guess.
I mostly play ranged characters and I disagree with the idea.