|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This came up in a separate thread, and I thought maybe it would be appropriate to give it its own thread. Maybe there is an official ruling that I'm unaware of.
It's funny, since I always thought that you were your own ally. I just checked... it is quite an annoying fact, but the term "ally" is not defined anywhere in the book. I checked the appendix and index.
The only reason I can see for the basis of the ruling that you are your own ally is the descriptions of some of the Bardic performances. For example, Inspire Courage states "... in his allies (including himself)". The parenthesis seem to suggest that allies includes oneself. Also, in Inspire Competence, the ability has to specifically state that the Bard himself cannot be effected, "A bard can't inspire competence in himself."
While most abilities clarify whether or not you count as your "own ally", some do not (like Gang Up from the APG). I think its time that the term is defined.
|
This came up in a separate thread, and I thought maybe it would be appropriate to give it its own thread. Maybe there is an official ruling that I'm unaware of.
It's funny, since I always thought that you were your own ally. I just checked... it is quite an annoying fact, but the term "ally" is not defined anywhere in the book. I checked the appendix and index.
The only reason I can see for the basis of the ruling that you are your own ally is the descriptions of some of the Bardic performances. For example, Inspire Courage states "... in his allies (including himself)". The parenthesis seem to suggest that allies includes oneself. Also, in Inspire Competence, the ability has to specifically state that the Bard himself cannot be effected, "A bard can't inspire competence in himself."
While most abilities clarify whether or not you count as your "own ally", some do not (like Gang Up from the APG). I think its time that the term is defined.
The Definition of Ally in the real world is "to form or enter into an alliance <two factions allying with each other>" you can't enter an alliance with yourself, because to enter into an alliance you need 2 parties.
There are also many spell that affect "You and your allies" pointing to you not being your own ally.
I seem to remember a 3.5 ruling that you were in fact your own ally. Not sure where it was posted, or if that has been ported over to PFRPG.
|
|
This came up in a separate thread, and I thought maybe it would be appropriate to give it its own thread. Maybe there is an official ruling that I'm unaware of.
It's funny, since I always thought that you were your own ally. I just checked... it is quite an annoying fact, but the term "ally" is not defined anywhere in the book. I checked the appendix and index.
The only reason I can see for the basis of the ruling that you are your own ally is the descriptions of some of the Bardic performances. For example, Inspire Courage states "... in his allies (including himself)". The parenthesis seem to suggest that allies includes oneself. Also, in Inspire Competence, the ability has to specifically state that the Bard himself cannot be effected, "A bard can't inspire competence in himself."
While most abilities clarify whether or not you count as your "own ally", some do not (like Gang Up from the APG). I think its time that the term is defined.
The Definition of Ally in the real world is "to form or enter into an alliance <two factions allying with each other>" you can't enter an alliance with yourself, because to enter into an alliance you need 2 parties.
There are also many spell that affect "You and your allies" pointing to you not being your own ally.
What about someone who has multiple personalities?
I think it is a case by case basis:
Some effects state that you count as your own ally when you use them and some state that you do not.
For those that aren't clear, I tend to think that an "ally" has to be someone who is not you.. but that's just IMHO so.. uh.. YMMV?
|
I think the general definition of "Ally" in 3.X system has been "An entity you are friendly towards at this instant." The definition of "Enemy" is the counterpart to this.
This can be short term ("Don't want to hit the prisoner!") or long term ("Heal rogue, not badbad.").
The way I've run it, the caster can specify who counts as an "Ally" or "Enemy" for any given casting. Supernatural or Extraordinary effects (like bardic music) follow this set of rules as well in my games. Thus, unless specified otherwise, a character can count as his own ally (or even enemy, if they want). Inspire competence (as you noted) is a listed exception.
TLDR: Yeah, a bard can inspire courage themselves. Ally is extremely subjective (from the character's perspective), and I believe purposely so.
Player's Handbook 3.5, p304:
Ally: A creature friendly to you. In most cases, references to "allies" include yourself.
I don't see anything in Pathfinder.
The ruling in 3.5 was that you are not your own ally, but that abilities that affected "all allies" or "your allies" also affect you.
Logically speaking, it is impossible to be one's own ally, because ally is defined as a relationship between two entities.
|
|
Player's Handbook 3.5, p304:
Ally: A creature friendly to you. In most cases, references to "allies" include yourself.I don't see anything in Pathfinder.
Ah, interesting. I just checked my 3.5 player's rulebook and it is indeed there.
I suppose until Paizo says elsewhere that the definition has changed, I will continue to rule that "allies" include yourself. Thanks, everyone.
|
|
Yeah, the whole Selective Spell/AMF question also hinges upon aMiB's statement that "you are your own ally". I'm not sure I buy it, really. How many things would be severely nerfed if "ally" didn't include oneself, unless otherwise excepted in the rules? Hmmmm... I may have a homework project.
If it solves more problems than it causes, it'd be an interesting point to consider more.
Well, I don't know if it's changed in Pathfinder, but in 3.5, if I recall correctly, you were your own ally...sort of.
If something specified "allies", then you were one of them (provided you wanted to be, at any rate). But if it was "an ally", then you weren't.
It would be easier to figure things out if that were the case. I don't disagree that it can be, but more problems may come up if that's the way you read it (bardic music, for example, though in that case it's specified). But as long as your GM (or you as a GM) are willing to make those case-by-case rulings on things that may come up, it'd be fine.
|
|
I agree, but the RAW stickler inside me wants there to be a hard and fast answer for this. It's the sort of thing where someone should be able to go from one table to another and know what to expect. Basically, it's a yes or no question.
If you roll 3.5 rules into PFRPG where concepts are unclear, then it's a yes. I don't do that, so I'm still not sure.
I agree, but the RAW stickler inside me wants there to be a hard and fast answer for this. It's the sort of thing where someone should be able to go from one table to another and know what to expect. Basically, it's a yes or no question.
If you roll 3.5 rules into PFRPG where concepts are unclear, then it's a yes. I don't do that, so I'm still not sure.
Abilities normally read
A. This ability affects all allies within a 30 ft radius(as an example)B. This ability affects all allies within a 30 ft radius. The caster may choose to include himself if he wants.
This leads me to believe that if the option to include yourself is not mentioned then you don't get to. Otherwise B would read ...."The cast may not choose to include himself".
In both examples B is the exception.
|
|
It would be easier to figure things out if that were the case. I don't disagree that it can be, but more problems may come up if that's the way you read it (bardic music, for example, though in that case it's specified). But as long as your GM (or you as a GM) are willing to make those case-by-case rulings on things that may come up, it'd be fine.
Of course, as a DM, one should always make up rules as you go in the case rules are unclear. Although, I do like having the rules as clear as possible. And when I do have to improvise the rules, I do my best to dig up the real rules before the next session.
Perhaps I'm in the minority for roleplayers, but I would prefer there is a clear defined defintion for the word "ally" and "allies" as it applies to rule text. I'm going to rule it in my own games that text that says "allies" does include yourself, like in 3.5. If the folks at Paizo didn't mention it in their huge core rulebook, I would assume that they didn't intend to change it.
I'm going to rule it in my own games that text that says "allies" does include yourself, like in 3.5.
Where was that at?
The ruling in 3.5 was that you are not your own ally, but that abilities that affected "all allies" or "your allies" also affect you.
Logically speaking, it is impossible to be one's own ally, because ally is defined as a relationship between two entities.
I like how Guild Wars did it
Ally: Party + youOther ally: Party - you
The 3.5 core rulebook, page 304.I'm going to rule it in my own games that text that says "allies" does include yourself, like in 3.5.Where was that at?
The core book is not as extensive with descriptions as 3.5 was. I would rather have paid for two separate core books than to have one incomplete one.
edit: What I mean is the descriptions are more vague than in 3.5 because of page limit issues, and a few things were cut that in my opinion should have stayed. I realized how that sounded after I wrote it.
|
|
The 3.5 core rulebook, page 304.I'm going to rule it in my own games that text that says "allies" does include yourself, like in 3.5.Where was that at?The core book is not as extensive with descriptions as 3.5 was. I would rather have paid for two separate core books than to have one incomplete one.
edit: What I mean is the descriptions are more vague than in 3.5 because of page limit issues, and a few things were cut that in my opinion should have stayed. I realized how that sounded after I wrote it.
I completely agree with you, I've noticed more and more that the Pathfinder Core Rulebook has some things... missing, and some times are not quite as clear as I would've liked. The only reason I can think of for the definition of "ally" not to be included was because they forgot it. Which would've been somewhat easy since I don't think it was mentioned in the 3.5 SRD (although I doubt the definition of "ally" would be subject to copyright infringement.. at least, not if they reworded it).
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Answered in FAQ.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ally: Do you count as your own ally?
You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."
30 seconds for finding it in the CRB FAQ.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even so, 3.5 year thread necro, a question which is answered in the CRB FAQ, asked of a man who doesn't work for Paizo any more... that's pretty epic.
Yes! So that means that as a Mythic Marshal I can make an extra swift attack myself OR give a crewmember another swift attack! :D