Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

Which teamwork feats are compatible with a ranged Inquisitor (Reaper of Secrets)?


Rules Questions


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm creating a crossbow-focused Inquisitor with the Reaper of Secrets archetype. The Reaper of Secrets grants a class feature called Mind-Game Tactics (replacing Solo Tactics) which essentially allows you to treat foes as if they have Teamwork feats you possess...

...this seems like it should open up all kinds of shenanigans...

However, with many Teamwork feats the result of doing so is nonsensical or offers no advantage whatsoever. For example, most Teamwork feats stipulate "when adjacent to an ally"...which when combined with Mind-Game Tactics can be translated to "when adjacent to a foe"...but an archer wants to avoid being adjacent to enemies as much as possible!

Which Teamwork feats work well with Mind-Game Tactics and a ranged Inquisitor? Thanks for your insights!

Quote:

Mind-Game Tactics (Su): At 3rd level, a reaper of secrets can read other creatures so well she can use their reactions to gain a tactical advantage. She treats any creature targeted by her soul-piercing gaze as if it were her ally and possessed the same teamwork feats as she does for the purposes of positioning and threatening when she determines whether she receives a benefit from her teamwork feats. She cannot use this ability to benefit from any teamwork feats that require particular actions from allies, such as Swap Places.

For example, a reaper of secrets with the Precise Strike feat gains the bonus from that feat if she and the target of her soul-piercing gaze occupy flanking positions relative to the creature she attacks.

This ability replaces Solo Tactics.


Safe passage should be hilarious.


Escape Route


bonded mind would be funny.
lots of Betrayal teamwork feats.
Friendly Fire is a good one.
Volley Fire for the no cover part
Pack Attack to attack and move away.


Betrayal teamwork feats won't work in your favour when used by an Inquisitor unfortunately.


Some good ones, thanks!

Ryan Freire wrote:
Safe passage should be hilarious.

Where is Safe Passage from? I didn't see it on d20pfsrd or achivesofnethus.

Lemartes wrote:
Escape Route

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I don't think Escape Route works in this case?

Say I used Soul-Piercing Gaze & Mind-Game Tactics on an ogre to "give" it the Escape Route feat. Now it acts as "an ally who also has this feat." So I'd be granting the ogre the power to provoke no AoO for moving through squares adjacent to me or within my space.

Why on earth would I want that? Unless I cast charm monster on the ogre (which is not on the inquisitor's spell list).

Quote:

Escape Route

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.
pavaan wrote:

bonded mind would be funny.

lots of Betrayal teamwork feats.
Friendly Fire is a good one.
Volley Fire for the no cover part
Pack Attack to attack and move away.

Bonded Mind would be fun! Thanks for the ideas...

However, I'm thinking @Lemartes is right that Betrayal Feats wouldn't work in this case.

Take Friendly Fire... If I used Soul-Piercing Gaze & Mind-Game Tactics to "give" an ogre the Friendly Fire feat temporarily, then it would essentially become the "abettor."

So I'd target a foe, say a goblin, but then that goblin would need to be engaged in melee with the ogre. In other words, Friendly Fire would only be useful with Mind-Game Tactics if two enemies are fighting one another. Seems too corner case to be useful.

Quote:

Friendly Fire

Benefit(s): You initiate this feat as a standard action, making a ranged attack against a foe engaged in melee with at least one abettor. This shot deliberately forsakes normal precautions, putting your abettor at risk, but also is unexpected enough to surprise your mutual opponent.

You gain a +2 bonus on your attack roll if the attack passes through an abettor’s space. If your shot misses the target, you must immediately make a second attack roll with all the same modifiers against the abettor, potentially hitting her with the attack instead of the opponent. When the attack resolves (regardless of whether either potential target was hit), the intended target’s startled reaction provokes an attack of opportunity from the abettor.


I'm currently playing a Reaper of Secrets/Sanctified Slayer in a Curse of the Crimson Throne game my DM is running. Even though our builds would have very different approaches I can still lend some advice.

Do note that Mind-Game Tactics treats the target of your Soul-Piercing Gaze as your ally only so far as to give you a benefit for your teamwork feats. The target of your gaze doesn't actually get any benefit from this ability. This means that you can target an enemy (or ally) and be able to move around them without provoking for movement with Escape Route and you wouldn't have to worry about the enemy using that ability against you. Undine Inquisitors with the Undine Loyalty trait are a fun time with Escape Route, even better when they're a Reaper of Secrets.

Also take care with your action economy with this archetype. Some of the really fun teamwork feats that work with this ability tend to use immediate actions. If you take that immediate action outside of your turn you use up your upcoming turn's swift action. That means no activating Bane/Greater Bane, and also means you can't activate or swap any of your Judgments. Not to mention you need to use a swift in the first place just to get your Soul-Piercing Gaze on a target. A Corset of Delicate Moves can help a tiny bit with this by letting you get an additional swift action once per day at the expense of giving up your move action.

I made a melee Inquisitor that focused on flanking for sneak attack so I'll have to look back through the teamwork feats and note which ones would work for a ranged character. It might be more difficult since Mind-Game Tactics states that it only works with teamwork feats that deal with "positioning" or "threatening", which to be honest feels a little vague. I'm not too familiar with the red-tape around "ranged flanking" and if that's actually a thing.

I would recommend Pack Attack if I actually knew for certain what it did, or what the author/designer intended it to do. It's a really cool feat that could work a few different ways, but it is worded loosely. I would recommend you look into that feat closely and bring it up with your DM to figure out how it will work. One of the issues with it is that the 'brief' description for the feat, where they summarize it at the beginning of the section in a table is very different from the actual text of the feat. The summarized description says "Ally’s attack allows you to take a 5-foot step", but the actual text says "When you are adjacent to an ally with this feat, the first time you melee attack an opponent, you can spend an immediate action to take a 5-foot step, even if you have otherwise moved this round." This text mismatch is consistent between the srd, nethys and the physical copy last time I checked.

I cannot discern if they meant for it to work interchangeably for either person, or if they truly meant for it to only work for yourself off of your own attack and forgot to amend the table description. It doesn't help that it's unclear what it means by "the first time you attack". Does it mean in this combat? In this round? In this lifetime against this unique enemy? I personally think it would mean "This particular instance of being adjacent to an ally who also has this feat", since that makes the most sense to me, but others may think differently. How you interrupt this feat could mean that if you're adjacent to the target of you Soul-Piercing Gaze and they happen to take one of their AoOs you may have to decide right then and there if you want to take your Pack Attack 5-foot step or potentially lose it for the remainder of the round/turn/combat.

I have to head out but I'll drop by again once I get some time later to look at the feats again.


RSPK wrote:
I'm currently playing a Reaper of Secrets/Sanctified Slayer in a Curse of the Crimson Throne game my DM is running. Even though our builds would have very different approaches I can still lend some advice.

Thanks RSPK! Especially for that bit about immediate actions – never would have realized that without you pointing it out.

I am considering Escape Route and also Ally Shield...though Ally Shield raises some questions too...like could it effectively cause an enemy attacking you in melee to act as cover against his own attack...and possibly hit himself...


Escape route is the one i was thinking of. If your opponents cant attack you for walking away, thats like half of the issue of ranged characters.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Escape route is the one i was thinking of. If your opponents cant attack you for walking away, thats like half of the issue of ranged characters.

Yeah, there seems to be misunderstanding about the Escape teamwork feat. This may be because the summary blurb on both d20PFSRD and Archive of Nethys is flat-out wrong.

The blurb reads:

Quote:
You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when moving through spaces adjacent to allies

However, that's not what the actual feat does at all:

Quote:

Escape Route

You have trained to watch your allies’ backs, covering them as they make tactical withdraws.

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

So when combined with the Reaper of Secrets' Soul-Piercing Gaze & Mind-Game Tactics... you'd essentially replace "an ally who also has this feat" with "a foe", which would make no sense (or at least NOT be to your advantage to thus empower a foe).

I'm beginning to suspect that the subtext behind Reaper of Secrets is that it's intended to be a melee-focused build. Nothing in the flavor says that, and nothing obvious in the mechanics. I've had to comb through all the teamwork feats and the only one I've found that fits a ranged Inquisitor (Reaper of Secrets) is Ally Shield.

Just one.


I think it works if you move away from foe A while using the gaze on foe B. :)

Granted that would be an odd situation where you wouldn't provoke from B. I guess you would have one less AO that turn so sorta good. Unless you can gaze more than one person?

I didn't fully think this through with respect to the reaper of secrets ability. I'm still not 100% clear on how that combo would work. Doh. ;)


From what I understand the way Escape Route works with Mind-Game Tactics and Soul-Piercing Gaze is like this: As long as you are within 5 feet of the target of your Soul-Piercing Gaze you never provoke for movement, ever, from anyone. You could spend a double move and just repeatably circle around a targeted enemy and you would not provoke, provided you remain adjacent for the entirety of your movement.


RSPK wrote:
From what I understand the way Escape Route works with Mind-Game Tactics and Soul-Piercing Gaze is like this: As long as you are within 5 feet of the target of your Soul-Piercing Gaze you never provoke for movement, ever, from anyone. You could spend a double move and just repeatably circle around a targeted enemy and you would not provoke, provided you remain adjacent for the entirety of your movement.

Are you sure?

Escape Route reads...

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

So if you replace "ally who also has this feat" with "enemy", which is what Soul-Piercing Gaze & Mind-Game Tactics are intended to do, it reads...

Benefit: An enemy provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

So it says nothing about ME not provoking. It says my ENEMY wouldn't provoke.

Therefor I think it's a no-go for this build.

Tentatively, I'm taking Ally Shield & Lookout, which are the best I could find, and will discuss with rest of the group.


No, you treat the enemy as an ally AND as if they had the feat. So your frenemy has Escape Route, you have Escape Route, you can move around your frenemy without provoking. Inquisitors get the benefits of their Teamwork feats, not their allies (or enemies being treated as allies).


As much as I think it totally fits the flavor of the archetype and wished it worked by RAW, I honestly do not think that the Betrayal Teamwork feats work in this case. You could only fill in as the abettor, which means you could use them as long as you were taking on the negative effect(s), ie using Ally Shield to allow a targeted ally/enemy to use you as a shield from an attack.

Target of Opportunity:

While this teamwork feat and Volley Fire would be easier to use with regular Solo Tactics, if you have an ally in your party who you know is going to be hitting regularly this feat can potentially give you an extra attack every turn as long as you have your friend targeted with your gaze. There's also the fact you can always target your gaze on an ally outside of combat so you have a body to work with right when a fight breaks out. While I don't think the following are a priority, pre-gazing an ally can also be beneficial with Stealth Synergy, Lookout and Duck and Cover.

Friendly Fire Maneuvers can be used with your abilities on friend or foe alike to negate cover bonuses from combatants getting in the way of your shot.

Enfilading Fire:

IIRC even if you have some method to flank an enemy with an ally (Armor Spikes etc) ranged weapons can never gain a flanking bonus. As such Outflank and Improved Outflank do not compliment your build. However, Enfilading Fire is a teamwork feat that gives you an untyped +2 to hit bonus against a target your ally is flanking. If you do happen to gain a means of threatening an enemy despite wielding your crossbow you could use one enemy's positioning with your Soul-Piercing Gaze to flank another enemy in between you both and thus benefit from your own flank with this teamwork feat. Though I would definitely recommend picking up Point Blank Master or some other method of eliminating the AoO you'll provoke for firing a ranged weapon in melee.

Distracting Charge
I don't recommend this one over the others, but if your party happens to have a member that charges all the time this might be worth picking up as long as you pre-gaze them.

Coordinated Shot:

This shares a bit of the same territory with Enfilading Fire but if you have the feats to spare both can stack for a total of +4 to hit with the right positioning.

Coordinated Reposition:

This one is bit feat intensive. If you happen to go down the line of picking up feats like Snap Shot and Improved Snap Shot you could use this feat to re-actively move away from an enemy trying to five-foot step into you. I'm not sure it's worth it, given it requires the correct set up with your gaze, consumes up a lot of feats and uses up your immediate action. Additionally I don't see Step Up (a prerequisite) being much use to you. If you happen to be picking up those feats anyway it may be something to consider. I imagine most would prefer to avoid a situation where enemies could get into melee with their ranged character but even the best laid plans never survive contact with the enemy.

Back to Back:

You can effectively use this along with you abilities against a flanking enemy to negate the flanking bonus they'd get on you. There is a spell Inquisitors get called Countless Eyes that makes you immune to being flanked and lasts hours/level but you don't get access to that until 3rd level spells. Still, it's an option and can be pretty silly.

Considering some of these options, Combat Reflexes may be handy.

I know you said you are planning a ranged inquisitor, but once you get closer to your 2nd level spells take a gander at Ally Across Time.

Spoiler:
It basically lets you mark certain spaces on the battlefield from which you can summon a duplicate of yourself. During your turn you can spend a free action to summon this duplicate until the end of your turn. It would threaten the spaces around it, can be used to perform an aid another action to aid attacks, and possesses the same teamwork feats you do. It might not have as many applicable uses to a ranged inquisitor as a melee one, and I prob wouldn't use it in place of Divine Favor/bread-and-butter buff spell, but it can be handy in the right circumstances. If you do consider this spell, look at the teamwork feat Harrying Partners. That +2 to hit your duplicate gave you for a single attack would now last for your entire full attack.


Escape Route isn't a betrayal teamwork feat.


Technically, by RAW Betrayal feats DO work with Inquisitor.

Betrayal Feats wrote:
Characters with class abilities granting allies access to teamwork feats (such as cavaliers or inquisitors) can select these teamwork feats normally, but allies who are granted these feats can use the feats only as initiators, not as abettors.

Cuz Inquisitors DON'T grant feats to allies. It's clearly not RAI, but if it was, they should have worded it better. RAI, Betrayal feats don't work with Inquisitor at all, since if they're not granted the feat, they can't use it as an initiator.


Kristal Moonhand wrote:

Technically, by RAW Betrayal feats DO work with Inquisitor.

Betrayal Feats wrote:
Characters with class abilities granting allies access to teamwork feats (such as cavaliers or inquisitors) can select these teamwork feats normally, but allies who are granted these feats can use the feats only as initiators, not as abettors.
Cuz Inquisitors DON'T grant feats to allies. It's clearly not RAI, but if it was, they should have worded it better. RAI, Betrayal feats don't work with Inquisitor at all, since if they're not granted the feat, they can't use it as an initiator.

Now I'm thoroughly confused.

Is there any way to ask the devs for clarification about how Reaper of Secrets is intended to act with teamwork feats?


It's not that confusing.

Teamwork feats in general: The Inquisitor gets to pretend their allies had the same teamwork feats as them. Said allies gain no benefit from this unless they actually have those feats.
Betrayal feats in general: If you play a "share teamwork feats with others" class, said feats can only be used *against* you. (This technically does not affect the Inquisitor, since they don't actually share the feats - they only get benefits as if their allies had them, but their allies get nothing. Wear a helmet, hardcovers might be send flying your way.)

Reaper of Secrets: You treat an enemy as if they were an ally, otherwise the stuff above applies. (You get teamwork benefits with your enemy, they get nothing. If you use betrayal feats, books fly.)


Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:

It's not that confusing.

Teamwork feats in general: The Inquisitor gets to pretend their allies had the same teamwork feats as them. Said allies gain no benefit from this unless they actually have those feats.
Betrayal feats in general: If you play a "share teamwork feats with others" class, said feats can only be used *against* you. (This technically does not affect the Inquisitor, since they don't actually share the feats - they only get benefits as if their allies had them, but their allies get nothing. Wear a helmet, hardcovers might be send flying your way.)

Reaper of Secrets: You treat an enemy as if they were an ally, otherwise the stuff above applies. (You get teamwork benefits with your enemy, they get nothing. If you use betrayal feats, books fly.)

"Books fly" LOL

Well, Betrayal feats came out in 2014 (Champions of Corruption) before Reaper of Secrets appeared in 2015 (Pathfinder Player Companion: Dirty Tactics Toolbox)...so in theory the designer/authors created Reaper of Secrets perfectly aware of Betrayal Feats, intending them to be used with the Reaper of Secrets.


Just tried running the Reaper of Secrets in the game I was invited into, and... I think Mind-Game Tactics just flat-out doesn't work narratively.

I get the mechanical idea...but as far as role-playing a convincing narrative of "I'm your ally, share my teamwork feat", it only really works if I role-play with a sentient NPC in advance of fighting them.

The DM vetoed my attempted use of it during a surprise round, and frankly I agreed with him. Narratively, it just doesn't make sense.


aaron infante-levy wrote:
RSPK wrote:
From what I understand the way Escape Route works with Mind-Game Tactics and Soul-Piercing Gaze is like this: As long as you are within 5 feet of the target of your Soul-Piercing Gaze you never provoke for movement, ever, from anyone. You could spend a double move and just repeatably circle around a targeted enemy and you would not provoke, provided you remain adjacent for the entirety of your movement.

Are you sure?

Escape Route reads...

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

So if you replace "ally who also has this feat" with "enemy", which is what Soul-Piercing Gaze & Mind-Game Tactics are intended to do, it reads...

Benefit: An enemy provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

So it says nothing about ME not provoking. It says my ENEMY wouldn't provoke.

Therefor I think it's a no-go for this build.

Tentatively, I'm taking Ally Shield & Lookout, which are the best I could find, and will discuss with rest of the group.

Except the enemy you use it on is treated as though they have the feat, so reverse the perspective. It works.


aaron infante-levy wrote:

"Books fly" LOL

Well, Betrayal feats came out in 2014 (Champions of Corruption) before Reaper of Secrets appeared in 2015 (Pathfinder Player Companion: Dirty Tactics Toolbox)...so in theory the designer/authors created Reaper of Secrets perfectly aware of Betrayal Feats, intending them to be used with the Reaper of Secrets.

The reasons books would fly isn't the Reaper of Secrets, it's because Betrayal feats only work with an Inquisitor (who came out 2010, long before Betrayal feats) due to a technicality - Betrayal feat's uses for "share your teamwork feats with others" classes are limited, but Inquisitors don't really share those feats, they just get bonuses as if their allies had the same feats.

It's pretty clear that this isn't a reasonable distinction - Inquisitors should treat Betrayal feats as any other Teamwork feat sharing class, with the Inquisitor only being an acceptable target, not someone who can actually betray others (unless those actually have the same feat). But using this technically to not only use Betrayal feats, but to also put the betrayal penalty on the enemy? Yeah, that's just rules-lawyering cheese.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aaron infante-levy wrote:

Are you sure?

Escape Route reads...

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

So if you replace "ally who also has this feat" with "enemy", which is what Soul-Piercing Gaze & Mind-Game Tactics are intended to do, it reads...

Benefit: An enemy provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

So it says nothing about ME not provoking. It says my ENEMY wouldn't provoke.

Therefor I think it's a no-go for this build.

I'm absolutely sure. The narrative fiction of how Escape Route normally works between two allies is that one of you is actively warding away enemy attacks in order to cover the other's advance. With Mind Game Tactics, you're not only treating a targeted enemy as though they're an ally to garner a benefit from your own teamwork feat, but you're also garnering the benefit of their "bestowed" teamwork feat. As Ryan Freire pointed out, you gain a benefit from either or both perspectives, the enemy gets nothing. This could be expressed narratively by you noticing an opening in an enemy's stance or positioning and exploiting it. Your movement is so abrupt or hard to track he's having trouble leveraging attacks against you. Either his feeble attempts at attacking you are inadvertently keeping his allies at bay, or they are afraid of hitting him by accident. This fulfills the mechanical benefit of not provoking an AoO for movement from anyone within those 5 feet.

aaron infante-levy wrote:

Just tried running the Reaper of Secrets in the game I was invited into, and... I think Mind-Game Tactics just flat-out doesn't work narratively.

I get the mechanical idea...but as far as role-playing a convincing narrative of "I'm your ally, share my teamwork feat", it only really works if I role-play with a sentient NPC in advance of fighting them.

The DM vetoed my attempted use of it during a surprise round, and frankly I agreed with him. Narratively, it just doesn't make sense.

It would help if you're more specific. Which Teamwork or Betrayal feat were you attempting to use in this instance? What was the situation that caused the narrative to not follow the fiction?

As others have pointed out, Betrayal feats don't really work with this ability or Solo Tactics by RAW, but when they do it's by exception and very limited due to the technicality. YMMV if you are trying to leverage Betrayal feats in this way. To be honest, there are a few cases where I can narratively imagine the Betrayal feat Wild Flanking working in the manner you are attempting to use them. Either way Mind-Game Tactics specifically calls out:

Quote:
She cannot use this ability to benefit from any teamwork feats that require particular actions from allies

Your targeted "ally" is not and can not be a willing participant. That's the main crux of why Betrayal feats as a whole do not work here, and may be why your group is running into trouble. It's the same reason the Betrayal feat Ally Shield doesn't work but the regular teamwork feat Back to Back does while being generally similar by narrative. Or why Swing About, Swap Places and Reckless Moves wouldn't work, but Escape Route and Stick Together would.

The narrative gist of the archetype's key ability is that you are so adept at reading your enemies' body language and intent that you can use the chaotic nature of a battle/situation to subtly manipulate and exploit them. With you always one step ahead, they cannot help but aid your efforts while impeding one another despite themselves.


Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
aaron infante-levy wrote:

"Books fly" LOL

Well, Betrayal feats came out in 2014 (Champions of Corruption) before Reaper of Secrets appeared in 2015 (Pathfinder Player Companion: Dirty Tactics Toolbox)...so in theory the designer/authors created Reaper of Secrets perfectly aware of Betrayal Feats, intending them to be used with the Reaper of Secrets.

The reasons books would fly isn't the Reaper of Secrets, it's because Betrayal feats only work with an Inquisitor (who came out 2010, long before Betrayal feats) due to a technicality - Betrayal feat's uses for "share your teamwork feats with others" classes are limited, but Inquisitors don't really share those feats, they just get bonuses as if their allies had the same feats.

It's pretty clear that this isn't a reasonable distinction - Inquisitors should treat Betrayal feats as any other Teamwork feat sharing class, with the Inquisitor only being an acceptable target, not someone who can actually betray others (unless those actually have the same feat). But using this technically to not only use Betrayal feats, but to also put the betrayal penalty on the enemy? Yeah, that's just rules-lawyering cheese.

My intent was not rules-lawyering cheese. Even if that were my style (it's not - story first guy here & long-time DM), I'm nowhere near well-versed enough in Pathfinder to even attempt culturing my own cheese. ;)

I was invited into a group running Pathfinder. This is my first Pathfinder character. Mostly I've DMed 5e or various editions of D&D. They're great fellas, so I jumped at a chance to be a player for a change.

My character is a sort of Littlefinger/Verys type (to use a Game of Thrones analogy), a street kid with a knack for establishing rapport with ravens who once worked for the church as an undercover inquisitor (after getting caught), felt like he was sold out, parted ways with church and became a spymaster / master of ravens for an old monster-hunting order called the Silver Swords.

System-wise, he is a LG Human Bard (Voice of the Wild) 1, Inquisitor (Reaper of Secrets) 6. However, after the session I joined, I'm considering dropping Reaper of Secrets with the DM's permission because it doesn't seem to work.

I really was envisioning him being a "grey" PC (even though he's Lawful Good), in that I wanted to evoke the question "whose side is he on anyway?" in many scenes. I'll explain my thinking & an actual play example below in my reply to RSPK...


RSPK wrote:
I'm absolutely sure. The narrative fiction of how Escape Route normally works between two allies is that one of you is actively warding away enemy attacks in order to cover the other's advance. With Mind Game Tactics, you're not only treating a targeted enemy as though they're an ally to garner a benefit from your own teamwork feat, but you're also garnering the benefit of their "bestowed" teamwork feat. As Ryan Freire pointed out, you gain a benefit from either or both perspectives, the enemy gets nothing. This could be expressed narratively by you noticing an opening in an enemy's stance or positioning and exploiting it. Your movement is so abrupt or hard to track he's having trouble leveraging attacks against you. Either his feeble attempts at attacking you are inadvertently keeping his allies at bay, or they are afraid of hitting him by accident. This fulfills the mechanical benefit of not provoking an AoO for movement from anyone within those 5 feet.

Ah I see... Thanks RSPK! :)

aaron infante-levy wrote:

Just tried running the Reaper of Secrets in the game I was invited into, and... I think Mind-Game Tactics just flat-out doesn't work narratively.

I get the mechanical idea...but as far as role-playing a convincing narrative of "I'm your ally, share my teamwork feat", it only really works if I role-play with a sentient NPC in advance of fighting them.
The DM vetoed my attempted use of it during a surprise round, and frankly I agreed with him. Narratively, it just doesn't make sense.

...

RSPK wrote:

It would help if you're more specific. Which Teamwork or Betrayal feat were you attempting to use in this instance? What was the situation that caused the narrative to not follow the fiction?

As others have pointed out, Betrayal feats don't really work with this ability or Solo Tactics by RAW, but when they do it's by exception and very limited due to the technicality. YMMV if you are trying to leverage Betrayal feats in this way. To be honest, there are a few cases where I can narratively imagine the Betrayal feat Wild Flanking working in the manner you are attempting to use them. Either way Mind-Game Tactics specifically calls out:

She cannot use this ability to benefit from any teamwork feats that require particular actions from allies

Your targeted "ally" is not and can not be a willing participant. That's the main crux of why Betrayal feats as a whole do not work here, and may be why your group is running into trouble. It's the same reason the Betrayal feat Ally Shield doesn't work but the regular teamwork feat Back to Back does while being generally similar by narrative. Or why Swing About, Swap Places and Reckless Moves wouldn't work, but Escape Route and Stick Together would.

The narrative gist of the archetype's key ability is that you are so adept at reading your enemies' body language and intent that you can use the chaotic nature of a battle/situation to subtly manipulate and exploit them. With you always one step ahead, they cannot help but aid your efforts while impeding one another despite themselves.

The feat in question was Ally Shield. The situation was another PC and I were invisible & infiltrating a keep to rescue a captive boy. It turned out he'd been turned into a construct of some kind, we presumed by an evil artificer who seemed to control him. We decided to launch a sneak attack. Other player wanted me to flank with him, so I intended to use Ally Shield to get the boy-turned-construct to strike at the evil artificer instead if the boy-turned-construct attacked me and missed.

I only have d20pfsrd.com as my source...but it doesn't mention anything about requiring action or willingness from your ally with the feat (a.k.a. "abettor")...

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/betrayal-feats/ally-shield-betrayal-teamwork/

On the contrary, it mentions actually pulling them into harm's way, regardless of their choice.

I don't understand, but since you guys are experienced with the game and are saying it's a technicality and not RAI, I'll just accept that & drop Reaper of Secrets as not working for my ranged Inquisitor. Thanks.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Which teamwork feats are compatible with a ranged Inquisitor (Reaper of Secrets)? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.