| 30 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There have been several cases of the "ally" FAQ making people think they get to always count themselves as an ally due to the very loose wording involved. I don't expect for an FAQ to cover every situation, but I think we can cover the teamwork feats.
The exact wording in the APG is this:
Teamwork feats grant large bonuses, but they only function under specific circumstances. In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield. Teamwork feats provide no bonus if the listed conditions are not met. Note that allies who are paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats.
Now there is nothing saying that it has to be another ally despite the inquisitor needing a class feature to bypass at least part of the requirements.
It is generally understood that unless there is another creature other than yourself that you can not use the feat.
I wish to get this cleared up so the question below is what I am FAQ'ing.
FAQ Question:Do all of the teamwork feats require another ally besides yourself in order to use the feat as a general rule or is the general rule that you can count as your own ally, even if you do not have something like the inquistor Solo Tactics class feature
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The inquisitor solo tactics being mentioned creates confusion because it does nothing for some feats, such as Broken Wing Tactics, that doesn't grant a bonus, but a benefit
IMHO, much cleaner:
FAQ Question: Do you ever count as your own ally for the purposes of Teamwork feats?
This is my best attempt at providing a clear wording. It is completely independent from Solo Tactics.
If the answer is YES, then according to the previous FAQ feats that describe actions that do not involve a second ally are legal when used alone
If the answer is NO, it's NO.
The inquisitor solo tactics being mentioned creates confusion because it does nothing for some feats, such as Broken Wing Tactics, that doesn't grant a bonus, but a benefit.
IMHO, much cleaner:
FAQ Question: Do all teamwork feats always require another ally besides yourself in order to use the feat?
Good point. It reminded me of some other discussion I have been in, and I can see some people saying "well, it doesn't say "all" of them". <thumbs up>
I have to keep the "general rule" in there along with your "all" suggestion because someone will argue that it is not the "general/default" rule.
The amount and level of rules gymnastics I have seen over the years is amazing(not in a good way).
Sorry, I edited while you were quoting me.
My last formula for the FAQ is my best attempt, feel free to make something out of it or not.
Jesus. No. Who would honestly rule that teamwork feats automatically work because you count as your own ally? Wording be damned, it's pretty freaking obvious what the intent of teamwork feats is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no I in team, or U. For that matter there is no G, but that's not terribly relevant...
Jesus. No. Who would honestly rule that teamwork feats automatically work because you count as your own ally? Wording be damned, it's pretty freaking obvious what the intent of teamwork feats is.
"broken wing gambit" "own ally" "combat reflexes" Thread
Seriously tho, I think counting as your own ally for teamwork feats falls under the "makes no sense" category. FAQ: "you count as your own ally"
There's no I in team, or U. For that matter there is no G, but that's not terribly relevant...
There is however a 'me' if you look closely enough :)
more seriously I find that people always seem to ignore/disregard the "makes no sense" clause.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Don't forget the press the FAQ button before you leave everyone. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I won't. The intent is obvious, blatantly so. No FAQ needed.
Don't forget the press the FAQ button before you leave everyone. :)
To whoever press the FAQ button on this comment, I was talking about my first comment. :)
No, I won't. The intent is obvious, blatantly so. No FAQ needed.
There are other "ally" questions where I am sure we both agree, but I have seen people use the "you are always your own" ally as the defense.
I've also seen people who say you can continue to act when you're dead because nothing about the dead condition prevents action. Those people should be slapped upside the head and ignored, not entertained.
I've also seen people who say you can continue to act when you're dead because nothing about the dead condition prevents action. Those people should be slapped upside the head and ignored, not entertained.
I've used that to prove that you can't literally follow every rule when someone else would insist that you can, while also saying common sense should not factor in because there is no way to know intent. However, I haven't seen anyone use that to say the game is to be played with you walking around while dead.
If the answer is yes, then Solo Tactics does absolutely nothing, and that is one of the defining class abilities of the inquisitor.
This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin.
Please, read some teamwork feats, and you will notice that 99% of them are worded in a way that makes the feat unusable alone, even though you count as your own ally.
The difference with Solo Tactics should be immediately evident
So we all agree it's utterly ridiculous and that nobody has or will run a game that way. Good.
No FAQ needed, let's move on.
So we all agree it's utterly ridiculous and that nobody has or will run a game that way. Good.
The only way anyone could reach that conclusion is if they didn't understand the matter at hand.
It appears that in 2016 people feel like they can't miss a chance to comment on something, even when they factually have nothing to contribute with.
more seriously I find that people always seem to ignore/disregard the "makes no sense" clause.
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time someone has read that FAQ, disregarded that portion of it, and tried to apply the rest if it in the most contorted manner possible - nor will it be the last.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we all agree it's utterly ridiculous and that nobody has or will run a game that way. Good.
No FAQ needed, let's move on.
I feel like this issue and several others are pretty obvious to me, but I have also noticed paradigm shift in how rules are read by players over the last 12+ years.
Many times now if something is not worded in a very exact manner then people will say "____ is the rule" despite it not being the intent.
Back in the early 2000's when I was on the 3.5 boards people would read the rule, look at precedent, etc etc to determine how a rule worked.
I think the designers got used to that so they write the rules as if people are going to put more effort into figuring the rules out. I don't think they are trying to be lazy. It is more like they consider their writing sufficient to be understood.
Now with people wanting more exact readings designers, who we must remember are not technical writers, are going to have to be more precise with their wording while still trying to preserve wordcount. That seems to be the way things are going.
Honestly, I can't really say that more precisely written rules are a bad thing, but I do think that refusing to connect the dots is a bad thing.
We just have to be careful how far this goes because the wordcount will eat into the amount of features we get if things get too nitpicky.
PS: This isn't a shot against people who want more exact language than has been given in the past. I am just explaining things I have noticed over the years.
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time someone has read that FAQ, disregarded that portion of it, and tried to apply the rest if it in the most contorted manner possible - nor will it be the last.
You appear to have a lot of assumptions going on over my intentions;
Please, explain:
-Why am I "disregarding" instead of "determining it's not applicable in my honest opinion". I'm hearing.
-Why would I be "trying to apply" anything when I'm doing an analysis? What are you implying exactly here?
Go on, I'm all ears =)
Honestly, I do think that Dark Sephriroth thinks this is a fair use of the FAQ saying that it makes sense to be your own ally.
I don't agree that it is the general intent for teamwork feats.
However, as I said before it is very difficult to have one rule that covers every situation of you when you can or can not count yourself as your own ally unless you just have each ability say it specifically.
That would eat into wordcount, so the best thing to do is to handle the "own ally" topics on a case by case basis, and try to get an overarching decision when we can, and just FAQ the specific cases when we can not.
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time someone has read that FAQ, disregarded that portion of it, and tried to apply the rest if it in the most contorted manner possible - nor will it be the last.You appear to have a lot of assumptions going on over my intentions;
Please, explain:
-Why am I "disregarding" instead of "determining it's not applicable in my honest opinion". I'm hearing.
-Why would I be "trying to apply" anything when I'm doing an analysis? What are you implying exactly here?Go on, I'm all ears =)
My comments in this thread were not specifically directed at you. As such, I was not assuming anything about YOUR personal intentions on the matter.
My comments in this thread were not specifically directed at you. As such, I was not assuming anything about YOUR personal intentions on the matter.
This is very interesting,
When you wrote "this isn't the first time someone..." what did you mean by "this" then? ;)
My comments in this thread were not specifically directed at you. As such, I was not assuming anything about YOUR personal intentions on the matter.This is very interesting,
When you wrote "this isn't the first time someone..." what did you mean by "this" then? ;)
The issue of trying to say you count as your own ally due to the FAQ saying that you do unless it doesn't make sense has caused others to claim that it makes sense in what some would call questionable situations.
That is likely the "this" he was talking about, but I will wait for verification.
The issue of trying to say you count as your own ally due to the FAQ saying that you do unless it doesn't make sense has caused others to claim that it makes sense in what some would call questionable situations.That is likely the "this" he was talking about, but I will wait for verification.
I'm pretty sure that if you write the sentence: "this isn't the first time X happens" you are including the current situation.
My comments in this thread were not specifically directed at you. As such, I was not assuming anything about YOUR personal intentions on the matter.This is very interesting,
When you wrote "this isn't the first time someone..." what did you mean by "this" then? ;)
The issue of trying to say you count as your own ally due to the FAQ saying that you do unless it doesn't make sense has caused others to claim that it makes sense in what some would call questionable situations.
That is likely the "this" he was talking about, but I will wait for verification.
+1
It was a general reference only without specific regard for who may or may not be taking any given stance on the current specific issue - simply a commentary on dragonhunterq's comments that I was quoting.
I'm pretty sure that if you write the sentence: "this isn't the first time X happens" you are including the current situation.
The issue of trying to say you count as your own ally due to the FAQ saying that you do unless it doesn't make sense has caused others to claim that it makes sense in what some would call questionable situations.That is likely the "this" he was talking about, but I will wait for verification.
Not really. The discussion was about "people always seem to ignore/disregard the "makes no sense" clause."
That could be the "this" he was talking about, since that is what he replied to. That is different from a this that counts as "this moment".
Having a bit of trouble followimg some of the back and forth, someone correct me if the followimg is not a fair summary.
1. Everyone who has posted here agrees that it is not the intent of teamwork feats for you to count as your own ally with respect to them.
2. Some posters have witnessed other players (not anyone who has currently posted) making the arguement that the "own ally" faq should allow you to be your own ally for teamwork feats.
3. Some posters think another faq on this topic would be helpful, others find it unnecessary.
That about it?
1. Not everyone. Some think that is the norm for you to require another creature, but they also think that some teamwork feats do allow it.
2. Correct.
3. So far nobody minds the FAQ except for one person, but I think he feels like those who think that you can be your own ally for these feats are trying to game the system. He didnt actually say that, but that is how I am reading the comment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At least in this thread the only person arguing that you can count as your own ally in teamwork feats is D@rK-SePHiRoTH-. And he is clearly biased by the desire to use this trick. While there aren't a lot of people here the consensus is obvious that it doesn't work by RAW.
posting this from other thread.
"To eat Spaghetti, in most cases you need fork a fork that also is green to be held in your hand"
parsed into proper english:
In most cases, you need to hold, in your hand, a green fork, to eat spaghetti.
like jesus this is hard to understand even in proper english. SO MUCH SUPERFLUOUS LANGUAGE.
At it's most simple:
You need a green fork to eat spaghetti.
having only now looked up the exact wording of the original sentence.
"In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield"
so my initial reading of this makes me feel the whole sentence is pointless. It's like "read the feat to see what it does". I don't think this is a rules line, but a line explaining the general gist of teamwork feats. you know, the "if you don't need or want something like this, keep moving".
To use these(teamwork) feats you must have an ally correctly positioned with the same feat on the battlefield.
there. now that it is proper English can we move on.
Any other opinions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we all agree it's utterly ridiculous and that nobody has or will run a game that way. Good.The only way anyone could reach that conclusion is if they didn't understand the matter at hand.
It appears that in 2016 people feel like they can't miss a chance to comment on something, even when they factually have nothing to contribute with.
The ad hominen attack is well appreciated. Happy birthday to me.
CBDunkerson understands. Would getting clarification on this be a bad thing? Of course not. But the PDT is already bogged down with far more work than they can answer and we don't need to give them silly little questions to deal with. There are a host of serious questions on their desk to handle and I would much rather their time be spent doing something productive.
...
There are a host of serious questions on their desk to handle and I would much rather their time be spent doing something productive.
I am still waiting for that bardic masterpiece FAQ.
So we all agree it's utterly ridiculous and that nobody has or will run a game that way. Good.The only way anyone could reach that conclusion is if they didn't understand the matter at hand.
It appears that in 2016 people feel like they can't miss a chance to comment on something, even when they factually have nothing to contribute with.
The ad hominen attack is well appreciated. Happy birthday to me.
to be clear he didn't use an ad hominen Fallacy. AD Fallacies try to discredit a specific individual's point of view because by attacking that person's X when X has nothing to do with the argument.
making an exasperated hyperbole is just that hyperbole. In fact saying someone doesn't understand isn't much of an attack anyway.
Chris has mentioned they are working on the bardic masterpiece FAQ, but since it's such a difficult question it's taking them a lot of time to reach a consensus. I personally prefer quality over expedition, so I agree with their approach.
You're confusing ad hominem with strawman. Instead of addressing the point being made he proposed that I couldn't comprehend the situation, attempting to bring my mental capacities into question.
And then he tried to condescendingly state that the only reason I was posting despite "having no facts" is just to post. The one and only reason I post in the rules and advice forums is to help other players. Period. I am an old veteran of this game and I derive pleasure from helping other gamers.
Call my argument crap all you want, that's fine. I welcome dissenting opinions and always encourage critical analysis and skepticism of my arguments. But calling me too stupid to grasp the situation or calling me a pointless s*+$poster is just sad. Address the argument. You might actually make a difference that way.