Ranger // Rogue Gestalt Question.

[Jgosse]

So I am thinking of playing a Ranger // Rogue Gestalt and I want a second opinion. If I hit someone and I have distracting atack they are flatfooted, and then if I have multiple attacks they are open for sneak attack on every other atk correct?

[Waker]

My reading would support that view. Hit for Distracting Attack, Flat-footed attack, Distracting Attacking, Flat-footed attack...

[Troacctid]

Not for your own sneak attack. Distracting attack makes them count as flanked by you for the purpose of your allies' attacks. It takes two to flank.

[Zaq]

Not for your own sneak attack. Distracting attack makes them count as flanked by you for the purpose of your allies' attacks. It takes two to flank.

Yeah, but in 3.5, you are your own ally. It explicitly calls the enemy flanked. I don't see why it wouldn't work. It's a little weird, but it doesn't seem unbalanced to me. Besides, it won't work on your first attack in the round anyway, so that's a pretty big cost if you ask me.

[Jgosse]

Yeah, but in 3.5, you are your own ally. It explicitly calls the enemy flanked. I don't see why it wouldn't work. It's a little weird, but it doesn't seem unbalanced to me. Besides, it won't work on your first attack in the round anyway, so that's a pretty big cost if you ask me.

And that's why rapid shot and improved rapid shot are nice in this build.

[Fouredged Sword]

Nah, go for greater manyshot.

I would also consider a slightly different build.

Ranger 3 / Scout 3 / Ranger 14 // Rogue 3 / Monk 3 / Rogue 14.

You can take a feat to mix monk / rogue and scout / ranger. You get almost full bab, full sneak attack, full skirmish, and evasion twice, so you can trade one copy for ray reflection. You also get full monk unarmed progression, so you are armed with a melee weapon while holding a bow.

[DEMON]

My reading would support that view. Hit for Distracting Attack, Flat-footed attack, Distracting Attacking, Flat-footed attack...

While I don't support this reading, if we accept that you can indeed flank for your own attacks, even ranged, why would only your even-numbered attacks be flat-footed (actually why would they be flat-footed in the first place, you are merely flanking, not making your target flat-footed)?

All after the 1st one in the round should be, since all the attacks make the target flanked for the next one.

[elonin]

Distracting attack only works to aid your allies. While it doesn't help a ranger/rogue I've considered having a ranger with rogue allies who all get easy sneak attack.

[Jgosse]

Nah, go for greater manyshot.

I would also consider a slightly different build.

Ranger 3 / Scout 3 / Ranger 14 // Rogue 3 / Monk 3 / Rogue 14.

You can take a feat to mix monk / rogue and scout / ranger. You get almost full bab, full sneak attack, full skirmish, and evasion twice, so you can trade one copy for ray reflection. You also get full monk unarmed progression, so you are armed with a melee weapon while holding a bow.

Feats like swift hunter typically are not allowed in gestalt campaignsand that is in the description of gestalt from the book. Also we play gestalt that you bind classes so every level of rogue has to be taken with ranger and if I want to multi class I have to pick two new classes such as monk//fighter.

[Troacctid]

Feats like swift hunter typically are not allowed in gestalt campaignsand that is in the description of gestalt from the book.

That's not what the book says. It calls out prestige classes, not feats.


Prestige classes that are essentially class combinations--such as the arcane trickster, mystic theurge, and eldritch knight--should be prohibited if you’re using gestalt classes, because they unduly complicate the game balance of what’s already a high-powered variant.

I mean, it wouldn't be unreasonable to disallow them for the same reason, I guess, but it's certainly not a book rule.

[Jgosse]

Distracting attack only works to aid your allies. While it doesn't help a ranger/rogue I've considered having a ranger with rogue allies who all get easy sneak attack.

The question is this why does it matter where the next target comes from, if I cause you to be distracted why does it matter where the next atk comes from.

[Jgosse]

Distracting attack only works to aid your allies. While it doesn't help a ranger/rogue I've considered having a ranger with rogue allies who all get easy sneak attack.

The question is this, why does it matter where the next attack comes from, if I cause you to be distracted why does it matter where the next atk comes from.

[DEMON]

The question is this, why does it matter where the next attack comes from, if I cause you to be distracted why does it matter where the next atk comes from.

The way I understand flanking, it means you're having hard time focusing on both/multiple attackers striking at you simultaneously.

The Distracting Attack offers a form of ranged flanking, distracting the target and making him focus on the Ranger that just shot him, thus making him open for an attack from another source. Even if the target counts as flanked by you for the next attack against it, you should not, in my book, be able to flank with yourself. Not that it would unbalance the Ranger, or your Ranger/Rogue build, I just don't believe the class feature does what you think it does.

You could make an argument he gets distracted by the actual wound and is thus open to any attack that comes next, and try to run it by your DM. Depending on how you do in the game, compared to other players, he might go for it, even if it wasn't RAW, so no harm in asking nicely.

As an alternate route to your goal, I'd just grab a level (or a few) of Swordsage on the Rogue side of the gestalt and go with Cloak of Deception for a full round of Sneak Attacks.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

"...whenever you hit an enemy with a weapon attack, that enemy is considered flanked by you for the purpose of adjudicating your allies' attacks."

Your allies count the target as being flanked, but you don't. Flanked by you means you're effectively helping them to flank the target, without yourself personally benefiting from flanking. You would be better off and using Wilderness Rogue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rogueVariantWilderness Rogue) and just dropping Ranger for a different class (Fighter, Warblade, etc.). Take Wild Cohort (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a) for an animal companion to help you flank opponents if that's what you want to do, it's better than a ranger's animal companion and its progression isn't tied to any particular class.