Pathfinder Gang Up Feat

[navar100]

Gang Up (Combat)
You are adept at using greater numbers against foes.
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.

Gang Up allows you to consider yourself flanking an opponent when you aren't if two allies are flanking an opponent. Can you gain the benefit from a distance away, such as being an archer, or must you be in melee threatening range?

[Squirrel_Dude]

I would say no, because the rules for flanking state that you gain the benefit from flanking if:


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.
So by normal rules you can only get a flanking attack if you are positioned correctly AND you are making a melee attack. This feat only makes it so that you no longer have to be positioned correctly.

[Big Fau]

Gang Up (Combat)
You are adept at using greater numbers against foes.
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.

Gang Up allows you to consider yourself flanking an opponent when you aren't if two allies are flanking an opponent. Can you gain the benefit from a distance away, such as being an archer, or must you be in melee threatening range?

Yes, until SKR reads this thread and freaks out about how he made the Rogue overpowered.

[Blyte]

I'd rule it no, because the "normal" references only the change to border/corner positioning, and not the "melee attack" qualifier in the rule of flank. This tells me that they did not intend to alter the "melee attack" component, through their poor choice of wording in the feat. But this is me reading into the RAI, and if your GM lives by the RAW and dies by the RAW, then snipe away :smallsmile:

[brakisaurus]

"Threatening" has a very specific rules definition: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Threatened-Squares

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack

A reach weapon will let you threaten a square without being adjacent.

If you have two melee friends threatening an opponent...I don't see why this feat wouldn't let a third attacker flank at range -- except for the part where the "flanking" rules specifically call out melee attacks. So no, I don't think this works for ranged "flanking" attacks.

[Keneth]

You can only flank with melee attacks, so "regardless of your actual positioning" in fact means "regardless of your actual positioning when attacking in melee".

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's basically just a crappier version of the Island of Blades stance with more (and awful) requirements. Or the PHB2 feat that worked similarly whose name escapes me.

[navar100]

okeydokey

Thanks

[John Campbell]

I think, by the letter of the feat description, you qualify as "flanking". As long as two of your allies are flanking the target, you're considered to be flanking it, regardless of your position. You don't have to be adjacent, you don't have to be threatening it. Your allies are the ones that have to threaten it.

You don't get the +2 flanking bonus to your attack, because the flanking rules require you to both be flanking and to be making a melee attack to get that bonus. You do, however, qualify for sneak attack from flanking, because the sneak attack rules only require that you be flanking, with the only additional restriction on ranged attacks being that you have to be within 30'.

Whether this is the intended interpretation, I'm not sure. But it seems to me to be what the text actually says.

[Keneth]

You seem to be under the impression that flanking is some kind of a status that you get that is somehow separate from the flanking bonus. You must be attacking with a melee weapon in order to be flanking.

But to clear this up with an official answer:

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)

[John Campbell]

It is, de facto, a status separate from the +2 bonus to melee attacks. It causes effects other than the +2 bonus (e.g., enabling sneak attack), and there are ways to achieve that status other than threatening something with a melee weapon opposite someone else who is also threatening it with a melee weapon (e.g., the Gang Up feat).

[Keneth]

Look at the above answer from Jason Buhlman. You're NOT flanking with the Gang Up feat unless you're attacking in melee. It is NOT a status or condition that you achieve by doing anything other than attacking in melee. It is a way of attacking in melee that grants you a bonus to attacks and enables things like Sneak Attack.

[RFLS]

Yes, until SKR reads this thread and freaks out about how he made the Rogue overpowered.

Quoted for great truth....

[John Campbell]

Should've written rules that said that, then.

[Keneth]

The rules do say that, the very first sentence under flanking starts with "When making a melee attack...", you're simply choosing to ignore it in favor of the feat's wording. Selective reading creates loopholes, this has always been a problem of D&D RAW. :smallsmile:

[Boci]

The rules do say that, the very first sentence under flanking starts with "When making a melee attack...", you're simply choosing to ignore it in favor of the feat's wording. Selective reading creates loopholes, this has always been a problem of D&D RAW. :smallsmile:

It's not selective reading. Flanking gives me a +2 to melee attacks. With Gang Up I am flanking a terget from 100ft away, provided 2 allies are adjacent. Unless I can make melee attacks from there I won't get the bonus to attack rolls, but I am still considered to be flanking the creature.

You are not required to make a melee attack to flank. You just get a bonus to one when you do.

[RFLS]

...it doesn't matter if you're considered flanking or not while you have the bow. You only get the bonus on melee attacks.

[Boci]

...it doesn't matter if you're considered flanking or not while you have the bow. You only get the bonus on melee attacks.

It does for a rogue if the target isn't denied dex, unless I missed something.

[RFLS]

I'm sorry, I'm tired and didn't read the thread very clearly. I'm still not sure exactly what the question was. The language of the feat, the condition, and Sneak Attack make it very clear that, despite not getting the +2 to-hit for flanking if using a bow, Sneak Attack will still proc.

[Keneth]

You are not required to make a melee attack to flank. You just get a bonus to one when you do.

You are not, that is simply not how flanking works. Flanking is a a method of attacking in melee, it is not a status. This is an official ruling. (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8fo1/faq?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Advanced-Players-Guide#v5748eaic9n87)

Can we put this argument to rest now? It's been answered several times over.

[Boci]

You are not, that is simply not how flanking works. Flanking is a a method of attacking in melee.

You got a book and page for that rule? Because from where I am standing we have the condition flanking with grants a bonus to melee attacks rolls.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/back-to-back-teamwork

That feat only makes sense is flanking is a condition.


This is an official ruling.

That's not a ruling, they don't mention any change to the feat.

[Keneth]

You got a book and page for that rule? Because from where I am standing we have the condition flanking with grants a bonus to melee attacks rolls.

Really? Show me under the conditions section where flanking is listed? Flanking is listed in the combat section and specifically noted as a modifier on melee attacks, not a condition.


hat feat only makes sense is flanking is a condition.

Wrong. Flanked and flanking are two different things. You are flanked when an opponent flanks you during its attack. You are flanking when attacking in melee under certain conditions. The Gang Up feat changes those conditions, but still only applies when melee attacking.


That's not a ruling, they don't mention any change to the feat.

They don't need to note any change, it's a clarification not an erratum. The feat already works as intended.

[Boci]

Really? Show me under the conditions section where flanking is listed? Flanking is listed in the combat section and specifically noted as a modifier on melee attacks, not a condition.

I didn't mean condition in the game sense (see below).

We still have the wording "considered flanking" along with "when the rogue flanks her target".

I'm going to assume that "considered flanking" means the that I flank the target.


Flanking is listed in the combat section and specifically noted as a modifier on melee attacks, not a condition.

No it isn't. +2 flanking bonus to the attack is a modifier to a melee attack, but flanking itself is not a modifer to the attack. Its a state resulting from two allies threatening the same creature whilst being on opposite sides.


Wrong. Flanked and flanking are two different things.

And neither is listed as a condition, yet the wording of the feat treats flanked as being one. This suggests there being "conditions" which are not conditions under the rules, such as a rogue's requirement for flanking.

I know, I know, my mistake for using the word condition. Let's call it "state" instead.


They don't need to note any change, it's a clarification not an erratum. The feat already works as intended.

1. Its FAQ. Is that RAW in pathfinder.

2. You cannot "clarify" something when you are contradicting RAW. You cannot "clarify" weapon focus to in fact give +2 to hit.

[Grasharm]

Does the paladin's mount count as another attacker if the paladin is attacking while mounted? What about animal companions?

[Boci]

Does the paladin's mount count as another attacker if the paladin is attacking while mounted? What about animal companions?

As long as they threaten the target, yes.

[Keneth]

We still have the wording "considered flanking" along with "when the rogue flanks her target".

I'm going to assume that "considered flanking" means the that I flank the target.

The phrase "considered flanking" is there for ease of understanding since there's no better way of phrasing that. For example, your ally on the opposite side of a creature is "considered flanking" even though they're not actually flanking a creature unless they make a melee attack against it while you are threatening it.


No it isn't. +2 flanking bonus to the attack is a modifier to a melee attack, but flanking itself is not a modifer to the attack. Its a state resulting from two allies threatening the same creature whilst being on opposite sides.

Show me where this distinction is made. It's not a state resulting from two allies threatening the same creature, if anything it's a state resulting from attacking the creature in melee while an ally is on the opposide side. Simply threatening the creature is not enough for it to be considered flanked. Case in point: If you're wielding a spiked gauntlet and a hand crossbow, while an ally is on the other side of the creature, you are not flanking the creature with your ranged weapon, even though you are threatening it with your gauntlet.


And neither is listed as a condition, yet the wording of the feat treats flanked as being one. This suggests there being "conditions" which are not conditions under the rules, such as a rogue's requirement for flanking.

I don't see any such wording. You are projecting your definition on the wording. Flanked is just a description of your state, not a condition. Just like "targeted" is not a condition. It just means you're a target of an effect. In the same fashion, flanked just means you are the target of a flanking attack which is by definition a melee attack.


1. Its FAQ. Is that RAW in pathfinder.

Official FAQs are there to clarify RAW when it seems ambiguous (such as in this case). The answers are considered to be the correct interpretation of RAW.


2. You cannot "clarify" something when you are contradicting RAW.

It's not contradicting anything. RAW says you are flanking only when making a melee attack, the Gang Up feat omits that information because it wasn't deemed necessary. The FAQ clarifies it for people who are seeing loopholes where there are none.

[Boci]

The phrase "considered flanking" is there for ease of understanding since there's no better way of phrasing that.

Be that as it may (and this is speculation on authors intent), the words change the meaning.


For example, your ally on the opposite side of a creature is "considered flanking" even though they're not actually flanking a creature unless they make a melee attack against it while you are threatening it.

Condradicted by RAW below.


Show me where this distinction is made.

See below.


I don't see any such wording. You are projecting your definition on the wording. Flanked is just a description of your state, not a condition. Just like "targeted" is not a condition. It just means you're a target of an effect.

And if I had an feat that stated "when X happens you are considered targetted" and a magic item that could be triggered when I was targetted, would I be able to trigger the item when X happened?


Official FAQs are there to clarify RAW when it seems ambiguous (such as in this case). The answers are considered to be the correct interpretation of RAW.

Its a contradiction though, not an interpretation.


It's not contradicting anything. RAW says you are flanking only when making a melee attack

Nope: "When in doubt about whether two characters flank" it applies to both of them, not just the one making the attack.

Your interpretation would require that rule to be singular "whether a character flanks".

[John Campbell]

The rules do say that, the very first sentence under flanking starts with "When making a melee attack...", you're simply choosing to ignore it in favor of the feat's wording. Selective reading creates loopholes, this has always been a problem of D&D RAW. :smallsmile:
I'm not the one that's selectively reading a portion of a single sentence and ignoring what the rest of the rules say.

Flanking rules, the bit you're selectively quoting:
"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."

And all this rule says is that you get an attack bonus when you make a melee attack while flanking.

The rest of the flanking rules describe how the status, condition, circumstance, state of being, whatever you want to call it - I'll go with "state of being", because it doesn't have any formal rules definition that I'm aware of - of "flanking" is normally achieved, which isn't relevant here for reasons I'll get into in a bit.

And, yes, this rule says if you're not making a melee attack, you don't get a +2 flanking bonus, even when you're flanking.

(This can happen without any special feats or anything; for example if you're wielding two daggers and flanking an opponent with an ally, and you choose, for some reason, to throw one of your daggers at the guy you're flanking. You still threaten him with your other dagger, so you're still flanking, but you don't get the +2 bonus because you're not making a melee attack. If you then continue your full attack by stabbing the guy with your other dagger - i.e, making a melee attack - you do get the +2 flanking bonus.)

It does not say that you only count as flanking if you're making a melee attack, or if you're getting a +2 bonus to attack. Your flanking buddy doesn't lose his +2 bonus if you don't make a melee attack, because you're still flanking with him. It does say that you have to threaten.

Sneak attack rules under the Rogue class description:
"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. [...] Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet."
[Snipped the irrelevant bit about sneak attack damage progression and critical hit multiplication.]

These rules treat flanking as a state of being. They make no references to getting the +2 bonus as a necessary condition for triggering sneak attack. They do not restrict the flanking trigger condition to only melee sneak attacks. They do add a restriction on ranged sneak attacks to only 30'.

(I'm using "condition" here in its more common meaning, not the formal rules meaning.)

Gang Up feat description:
"You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning."

And... this rule also treats flanking as a state of being, and, in addition, overrides all of that stuff in the base flanking rules about how the flanking state is achieved. It makes no reference to melee attacks, and overrides the necessity of being in position to threaten your target. If two of your allies threaten someone, you are flanking that someone, no matter where you are. You could be on a different plane of existence, and you'd still be flanking that someone.

It also doesn't override the rule that says the +2 flanking bonus on attacks only applies to melee attacks, so it doesn't apply. But neither does it override the rule that says that if you're flanking - which, again, it explicitly says that you are, if the condition of two of your allies threatening them is met - then it enables sneak attack.

Oh, and here's another fun one:

Snap Shot feat description:
"While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack of opportunity."

This means that you threaten with a ranged weapon, which means that you can flank with someone. If you shoot them with your ranged weapon, however, you don't get that +2 flanking bonus, because that only applies to melee attacks. If your flanking buddy is making a melee attack, he does get the bonus, though.

Hey, get three rogue archers with Improved Snap Shot (increases threat range to 15') and Gang Up, and sneak attack targets any time all three of you are within 15', regardless of how you're positioned.

But you still don't get that +2 bonus to your attacks.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Unlike in 3.5, in PF the FAQ is RAW.

Also unlike 3.5, in PF the FAQ is correct the majority of the time. :smallwink:

While PF also has errata, it doesn't seem to be updated very regularly and the FAQ is a de facto 2nd form of errata. I think actual "errata" means the books themselves will get updated printings and thus it is issued more scarcely, or somthing like that.

Of course, Paizo also has a ton of unofficial, non-RAW "rules changes" that aren't actual rules changes posted all over their blogs and even in freaking forum posts by people who aren't even their designers, sometimes even in the PF Society forums, which is just a collection of (mostly bad) houserules set up in order to run a uniform organized play environment which nonetheless become confused with or conflated as "RAW". (If you think I'm being overly harsh or making this up, check out White Haired Witch on d20pfsrd sometime, and dig into the source links, for an example)

So it's not like PF's rules status is any more organized or well managed than 3E's were.

[Keneth]

And if I had an feat that stated "when X happens you are considered targetted" and a magic item that could be triggered when I was targetted, would I be able to trigger the item when X happened?

Not an equivalent comparison to Gang Up, but a nice twist of logic and my own words. Had me thinking for a second. :smallsmile:


Nope: "When in doubt about whether two characters flank" it applies to both of them, not just the one making the attack.

Your interpretation would require that rule to be singular "whether a character flanks".

The phrasing here is largely irrelevant. Not in the sense that it can be discarded, but in that it depends in large part on the context. You always need at least two characters in order to flank someone, you don't flank a creature by yourself, you flank them with another creature. The wording is simplified because saying "whether a character flanks a creature with an ally that threatens the same creature" is bloated for no reason and it wouldn't change a thing as far as you are concerned. Even when worded in this manner, it could still be read as a condition or state, were it not for the fact that flanking is defined as a melee attack in the previous sentence, which is kind of the whole point. The wording is phrased that way to preserve space and everyone's sanity.


And all this rule says is that you get an attack bonus when you make a melee attack while flanking.

Actually, that is the definition of flanking, not simply a side note to it. Otherwise they would put it at the end of the description, not at the beginning. It sets the context for the entire rule.


This can happen without any special feats or anything; for example if you're wielding two daggers and flanking an opponent with an ally, and you choose, for some reason, to throw one of your daggers at the guy you're flanking. You still threaten him with your other dagger, so you're still flanking, but you don't get the +2 bonus because you're not making a melee attack.

Incorrect, and has been confirmed as such in both 3.5 and PF. You don't get any benefit when throwing a dagger, because you are not flanking when making a ranged attack, regardless of whether or not you are threatening an opponent with a melee weapon at the same time.


Your flanking buddy doesn't lose his +2 bonus if you don't make a melee attack, because you're still flanking with him. It does say that you have to threaten.

Actually, your buddy doesn't lose the bonus because you're threatening the opponent, not because you happen to be flanking him at any point in combat. Whether you're attacking someone is entirely irrelevant to whether or not they can flank them.


They do not restrict the flanking trigger condition to only melee sneak attacks.

Actually they do, since that is the definition of flanking.


Gang Up feat description:
"You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning."

And... this rule also treats flanking as a state of being

It does not, although you can read it as such if you want, but that doesn't change the mechanics in any way. You can only flank when making a melee attack and this feat changes the conditions under which you are considered to be flanking when making that melee attack. It does not change the fact that flanking requires a melee attack, it changes the condition that the allies need not be on the opposite side of the enemy.


Oh, and here's another fun one:

Snap Shot feat description:
"While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack of opportunity."

This means that you threaten with a ranged weapon, which means that you can flank with someone. If you shoot them with your ranged weapon, however, you don't get that +2 flanking bonus, because that only applies to melee attacks. If your flanking buddy is making a melee attack, he does get the bonus, though.

Also incorrect, and also confirmed by the devs. The fact that you threaten the enemy doesn't mean you can flank them with your ranged weapon. It does however mean that an ally can flank them if they make a melee attack against them since you threaten the space around you.


Anyway, I'm tired of this argument. If you choose to play the game that way, it's your business. But it's been confirmed as wrong, and thus makes this whole argument pointless.

[Boci]

Not an equivalent comparison to Gang Up, but a nice twist of logic and my own words. Had me thinking for a second. :smallsmile:

Care to explain why?

I'll attempt my self to do the opposite:

"when X happens at least two allies are threatening an enemy you are considered targetted to be flanking"

So far so good.

"can be triggered sneak attack can be dealt when I (she) was targetted flanks her target"

Again, works just as well.

"would I be able to trigger the item sneak attack when X happened at least two allies are threatening an enemy?"

Yeah, not seeing why this isn't a valid comparison.


The phrasing here is largely irrelevant. Not in the sense that it can be discarded, but in that it depends in large part on the context. You always need at least two characters in order to flank someone, you don't flank a creature by yourself, you flank them with another creature.

I already explained how it would have needed to have been worded to have that affect.


were it not for the fact that flanking is defined as a melee attack in the previous sentence, which is kind of the whole point.

Except it isn't. It doesn't say "Flanking is a special attack that gets a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner."


The wording is phrased that way to preserve space and everyone's sanity.

Maybe that was the origional intention, but it doesn't change the fact that through their attempts to preserve space, they altered the meaning of the words.

[Vknight]

Gang Up (Combat)
You are adept at using greater numbers against foes.
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.

Gang Up allows you to consider yourself flanking an opponent when you aren't if two allies are flanking an opponent. Can you gain the benefit from a distance away, such as being an archer, or must you be in melee threatening range?

Hmmmm

If two of your allies are threatening so if the enemy is in there threatened squares. You gain the benefits of flanking regardless of your or your allies positions.
By rules your gaining the benefits of a flank regardless of position as long as your allies have the target in there threatened area.
So its a useless feat if you still have to preform melee attacks for the flank benefits to take effect. Because at the point 2 allies have engaged a target in melee one will already be in position for you to flank with them.
The reading does not say you cannot use a ranged weapon for flank benefits but it also does not say that you can. That said I'd let a rogue sharpshot into his allies with that and gain the benefits because its not overpowering
That said it has major benefits for a group of small creatures/characters

My two cents