DocShock's page

Is there a reason initiative isn't in these blocks? I want that front and center, and maybe highlighted, because it's always the first thing I need to know.

Look at the Advanced Race Guide (Pathfinder). Above +2 is.counted as much more powerful, even if the net is lower.

This is true in the Pathfinder rules, but that was in a system with scaling values in the point-buy system. A +4 bonus on a character could let you start with a 22 in a stat. Here in Starfinder, there's a cap on starting scores at 18 anyway, so Krogans couldn't start with more than that, and it still takes 40% of your point buy to get you there.

This Krogan build would by the best race for soldier by a pretty good margin and be mediocre at pretty much every other class. I think that would be my primary criticism.

If I have a mechanic's drone, can he make skill checks or operate a gun during starship combat?

Thanks!

I really liked combat maneuvers in PF because they let martials affect combat in non-damage related ways. Trip builds could really hamper mobility and melee effectiveness, disarm builds defanged any humanoid NPCs, bullrush builds made create pit devastating even if the Reflex save was 11. Knocking someone off a cliff isn't just cinematic, it's mechanically effective. I'll reserve my opinion until I've read through the whole CRB, but if it's that hard to land maneuvers in SF I'm going to be pretty bummed out.

I really hate the fate's favored sacred tattoo combo too. My primary beef with it is that orc ferocity (especially when ramped up with the ferocious resolve feat) is one of the absolute coolest racial abilities in the game. If you want a +1 luck bonus, buy a headband of fortune's favor, stone of good luck, or robe of stars, and then kill the guy that thought he had killed you even though your guts are hanging out.

Hear hear!!!

Ranged Hunter is a really interesting idea. It might not synergize very well with a trip build (what with the +4 to AC vs ranged attacks and all), but having 4 fighters with a ton of teamwork feats could make for some powerful builds.

I disagree with this assessment on the grounds that the kind of newbies I started playing with a few years ago are far removed from the newbie you're describing. The newbie you're describing seems like they're coming from another role playing game and just picking up on the differences. Not learning to role play for the first time.

For someone who's new to role playing games in general, the 25 page combat section is intimidating enough without the 18 pages of how to cast spells and the numerous pages describing your spells.

It is also, in my opinion, easier to say "take power attack"

than it is to say "you want to cast divine favor?...yeah, so what's your divine focus again? Yeah, so draw that, and you need a free hand for the somatic part of the spell too, so let go of your sword with one hand to free that up... yeah, and then you're threatened, so do you want to take the hit or roll a concentration check?... well you'll have to roll a concentration check anyway if you get hit... okay, and what's your bonus on concentration checks? ...um, the formula's your caster level plus your casting stat bonus...no, your caster level is different than your level because you're a paladin, so it's your level minus 3... yeah, plus your charisma modifier... oh, yeah, you failed, sorry."

When someone doesn't know the mechanics it's easier to learn them with a character with as few conditional modifiers and game-time decisions (e.g. to smite, or not to smite?) as possible. That lets you get further without getting bogged down in the mechanics. And in my experience, that's absolutely the fighter.

Okay, looked it over. If you want to be able to make ranged trip or disarm attempts, the fighter had some cool options from the WMG. The fighter also has access to the Empty Quiver Style feat chain, which let's you use your bow like a mace while still applying all of your bow feats to the attack. Nothing game changing, but serves the same basic purpose as point blank master, and to me, whacking someone with a longbow is really cool.

Ranger gets improved precise shot at 6, as BNW noted. That's amazing if your pals keep getting in your way. It ends up being an effective +4 to hit bonus a lot of the time.

The last thing I would say is this. You should play what you want, as others have said, BUT! If your friends are trying to convince you to play a fighter over a ranger, there might be a good reason for it. If your pals are not very optimized, and you're here on the boards looking for advice about how to optimize an archer build, it might be a good idea to talk to your pals and GM about why they think you should play a fighter. If your other buddies are playing less than optimized builds, just be aware that with any optimized Archer build, including the fighter, ranger, paladin, slayer, and inquisitor, you're going to do about a billion damage all the time. While you should play what you want, if that's messing up the group dynamic, it's not going to be fun for anyone.

There are also story feats in Ultimate Campaign that I think are pretty nifty. They give you an example questline, and an example reward feat to give you ideas, but then you build on that. The rewards are often very situational as well, which means they typically don't end up altering the power level of the game. I worked nation under into one of my campaigns and we had a lot of fun with it.

That is why my group don't use the "guy that can better use an item get it" way to split loot, but instead calculate the value of all the loot, the value of each party member share, and them you get to to "buy" what you want of the loot.
We borrow virtual money from each other often when dividing loot, but each character has approximately the same WBL.
I don't become: "we have found a 8k sword, it go to the fighter, the bard get the charisma enhancing circlet, then we split the 3000gp we made for selling the other loot" as it will generate imbalances that often aren't compensated by later finds.

We never do this. The game tends to throw a lot of situationally awesome items at you that do nothing for you the rest of the time, like

In my experience, if you try to make sure everything is balanced all the time most people end up selling everything, because they don't want to take a hit on their gold so that they'll have a great item the couple of times you fight a bane-specific enemy. It comes down to playstyle, but I find that spending a lot of time ensuring everyone is hitting WBL evenly usually means everyone just ends up with really generic items like rings of protection instead of

Yeah, you can always bash your way in, but there are potential consequences.

And Carrion Crown can be a little rough on WBL, but:

I like the APs a lot, but my favorite thing is Dwarves. I love those guys. The description in the CRB says they're both tough and wise, but also a bit gruff. They've been my main race since I read that.

I don't mind the naming scheme as is. As other's have pointed out, it makes it really easy to recognize what the race is supposed to be about.

It also makes it harder to remember what race is called what when they don't do this while offering dozens of race options. e.g. I can never seem to remember which race the name wayang is associated with, and I have to look it up to remember it's those weirdo little shadow gremlin guys.

Conversely, when someone says "ratfolk", I seldom have to grab the ARG to remind me that it's those little rat guys.

This has come up a few times, and the general consensus seems to be that he is only choosing "feats from his selected combat style" when he gets them at 2,6,10,14 and 18. Otherwise he's taking normal feats with normal prereqs.

I think teamwork feats are super cool. Coordinating with your pals is an undervalued tactic. Boosting the action economy of two players with lookout, or giving your pal a free attack of opportunity when you crit are both really powerful effects.

Hey Guys,

There are a few threads that discuss whether or not you can cast magic vestments on a suit of summoned armor from the Oracle's mystery abilities like Armor of Bones. Has there been any comment from the designers, from the FAQ, from Sean K. Reynolds, ANYTHING official? I ask because our GM is on the fence about allowing it in our game, and a designer comment would push him one way or the other.

Anyone know of anything official about the combo?

Thanks

I see where you are coming from now, and I think part of the difference to my reaction (and perhaps in the players mind) is that when "Elf, Wolf" get decided the exact mechanical implementation of that isn't in the decision process. If you (disambiguous, AKA your player) put that together based on what the books say are "Elf" and "Wolf" and then think, "This really isn't as strong as I would like," or "This doesn't work how I would like," or "This doesn't fit the flavor I had in mind for this particular guy just right," or ALL OF THE ABOVE, then you look around for other stuff that might work.

You (specific) get annoyed that someone would re-work based on the first objection above. Now, imagine, if instead of reworking you (disambiguous, AKA your player) skipped the step where you put the character together based on what the publisher suggests you use for "Elf" and "Wolf" and chose what you wanted to represent with your character.

This completely eliminates the part that annoys you. You (actually you again) can be happy that the player has a character who thematically fits in the game you are playing, and your player can be happy that they can play the character he wants to play. Everyone wins, and no one gets rubbed wrong.

Yes, this I'll agree with. And like I said in my first post (although my example was apparently not helpful at all), it's more about what you do with a reskin than the fact that you're reskinning. If we had had a discussion about the perceived shortcomings of his character, we could have come to a conclusion about what he wanted his character to be and how to achieve it. I'm an open minded guy, we have a rabbit in our group, remember? But it was really more like "I made a bunch of changes based on optimization stuff I found on the messageboards". At that point it's not about a character concept, it's about brute force optimization. That's what I don't like.

In my group, we're not so extreme as to completely remove the published flavor. Most of us like it when a wolf is a wolf and an elf is an elf, and we build on top of that. But we're flexible enough with the published content that a "Cavalier" that can't wear metal, rides a rhino, and casts 9th level divine spells certainly isn't going to offend anyone.

Off the top of my head, the +2 to CHA is directly opposed to the gruff/loner type. The -2 to STR is also directly opposed to the tough type.

So those are reasons why the classic "halfling" model doesn't fit well, now the reasons why the dwarf type does.

+2 CON is very representative of being tough, as does stability and and hardy. The slow and steady ability is very invocative of someone who has spent time taking care of themselves (always bearing the full load, etc.)

I guess I'm just having trouble understanding where you're coming from in terms of what you feel is separate from the mechanics. Earlier, you said:

I see the mechanics as completely divorced from fluff

I took that to mean that in your mind your character was separate from his spreadsheet values. So a gruff loner would just be the way you play him, and not be influenced by his CHA score. And tough would some from acting like James Dean (there's no WAY that guy had a CON bonus).

If your character's personality is influenced by his ability scores, then where do you draw the line between fluff (I hate that expression, by the way) and mechanics?

In your other post it seemed like the reskins, and not a power boost due to reskins, was the issue. The OP of this thread would also likely be against reskinning to gain power, and I don't think anyone here is supporting that. To me that is another topic entirely since the OP was speaking of reskinning in good faith from what I read.

Oh, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I was trying to convey that this guy was reskinning only for the sake of having more powerful choices, not to fit into the campaign setting or anything like that. That's what was obnoxious. And to be clear, I'm in total support of reskinning a Samurai as a Knight (unless my samurai is going to be obnoxious about it).

If a player wants a powerful character, but he does not like the flavor, I still see it as legit to reflavor it. Otherwise it is like saying only weaker characters should be allowed to have their flavor changed.

It is not like it would be any less powerful if he chose the original options, and just kept the original flavor.

I also don't see an issue with wanting powerful characters as long as you stay within the group's optimization limits.

I think it would be obnoxious for anyone at my table to reskin for a power boost, regardless of total power level. I'm not trying to give you my whole life story here, so I'll just say that the example I gave was about half of the optimization changes the guy wanted to make, and his character was way outside the bounds of our group's optimization level, in part due to the reskins.

It doesn't effect my fun for someone to take the collection of stats listed under "half-orc" and call it "elf," because what I really see is "base creature template 1."

Yikes! Here's why we disagree on this stuff. My concept of what roleplaying means is really really far divorced from the "base creature template 1" model of roleplaying. To me, there's a certain charm to the notion that a gruff dwarf gets a bonus to his saves because he's a gruff dwarf, and a scrawny elf gets a CON penalty and a bonus to Spell Pen because he's a scrawny elf.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying my version of roleplaying is any more or less valid than yours, I just think we want different things out of the game, so our disagreement on being irritated by a wolf that isn't really a wolf seems pretty reasonable to me. Lets agree that we both think reskinning has it's place, and I'll continue to roll my eyes every time my player says "in the next campaign, I'm going to call my allosaurus a camel".

I think the thing we need to understand here is that reskinning is a tool. What you do with that tool can be as noble or obnoxious as you want it to be. There is nothing objectively annoying, entitled, whiny, or irritating about reskinning things, but if you use reskinning in an annoying way then you shouldn't be surprised that your GM/Players don't like it.

As an example, we had a guy who wanted to play as a rabbit because he had a different character in a campaign from another game that he really liked and wanted to update. We used a ratfolk mechanically, but ditched almost all of the ratfolk flavor so that he could be a rabbit. He loves the character and the rabbit thing isn't getting in anyone's way, so we think it was a successful reskin.

Another guy said he wanted to be a druid. He wanted to be an elf in the game, but he wanted to use the half-orc mechanics because he wanted free falchion proficiency and no CON penalty. Also, he wanted to reskin Fate's Favored to be Nature's Favored because Fate's Favored didn't fit his character concept, but he really wanted to have it because mechanically it's a really strong trait. Also, he wanted to have a wolf companion because wolves are really cool, but he wanted to reskin an allosaurus as a wolf because the allosaurus is so much stronger than the wolf, but having a dinosaur is cheesy (his words). This was, in my opinion, a bad series of reskins. The reskins were just there to let this guy play a min/maxed character without looking like he had just min/maxed like crazy. When used for such purposes, I find reskinning to be obnoxious.

I'm in full support of reflavoring things so that they fit your character, or your campaign, but not in favor of reskinning things to boost power levels or offer some mechanical advantage.

So we know you can use grab, but what's the consensus on what happens to the barbarian? He gets grappled, and can finish his charge with the grappled condition applied as long as he can make the attack without using two hands? If he is using a great sword or two-handed weapon his charge is ruined?

I think when we started out it was healbot aversion, now it's more of an issue of everyone wanting to be the primary damage dealer.

This is my party dynamic too, except it's never been healbot aversion, it's just cleric/oracle aversion in general. Our Oracle just switched characters to a barbarian because he wasn't "doing enough damage", which is a real bummer, because now it's all just DPR.

Well thanks for the (albeit conflicting) advice guys. I'll probably pick it up. I really liked the dwarves one because I'm a big fan of dwarf PCs, and I've been looking into Gnomes lately because the whole illusion bonus thing really interests me.

I'd go with a full divine caster class. Most new guys tend to take great pleasure in doing a lot of damage or hitting bad guys with debilitating spells, but not from casting awesome utility spells that save the whole party. If you're the kind of guy who can have fun using inspire courage and casting protection from evil/energy/etc., then I'd recommend the Evangelist Cleric.

If your arcanist is a blaster rather than the black-tentacles or spiked-pit type, play a witch. Slumber's boring, but you can keep misfortune up indefinitely with cackle, and that works on just about everything. Plus you can pick up haste from a couple of patrons (time, agility), and that's a great way to keep your rogue stabbing people.

Although this is a Knife Master build, consider that a catfolk with claw blades gets the d8 sneak attack dice as well. This can open up a number of options for a rogue who doesn't want to have to invest his archetype choice in knife master.

Everything LuxuriantOak said is spot on in my experience. I put together a sandbox where there was a city in really bad shape and the PCs had opportunities to explore and repair the town. Every time I threw them a plot hook they acted like I was confusing their primary and being a pain in the neck. Some guys just like to have one objective on the list at any given time.

Start by limiting certain feats/class abilities that can be learned by the players, that is if they want to learn them when they level up or retrain, that they have to find your NPC trainer who may or may not have a mission for them to do first.

I think this is a fantastic idea, and personally enjoy stories with built in restrictions and rewards, but make sure your PCs are comfortable with it first. In my experience, players can feel pretty entitled to being able to multiclass/train/buy however they want, and your katana-wielder might get real ticked off if you tell him he has to rescue the sandbox's sensei before he can take weapon focus.

I like playing a cleric. Many of the domain powers are pretty lackluster (4 versions of 1d6 + 1 damage ranged attacks from elementals is just boring), but there are some really good ones in there too.

The real problem with Clerics isn't anything to do with the class, it's with what makes the game fun, which is a player by player issue. If you're the kind of player who derives no satisfaction from shutting down a succubus encounter with a timely Protection from Evil, or letting your barbarian pounce right through a wall of fire with a Protection from Energy spell, then the cleric is probably not for you. I don't personally find that boring at all which is why I like playing Clerics, but I understand why the support role is not as enticing to some players.

Yeah, my horses can totally climb down that sewer entrance hole. I can also ride them easily in a six foot high tunnel. And all the tavern owners and nobles let me bring my horse into their abodes for meetings, and those rooftop chases? My horse NAILS those. Swimming down to an underwater entrance? My horse can do that! Tight trees and broken terrain? I don't need to walk my horse, man, I can charge right through a two foot oak and over any craggy ground. At level 1! Trotting around inside a castle is SO not a problem when I'm mounted on a horse. And I certainly ain't going to leave my horse behind when I'm attempting a stealthy infiltration or being in disguise, cavaliar mounts blend in everywhere!"
My GM doesn't have a problem with riding a horse. He has a problem with the horse not being limited because it's a horse.

And no, he doesn't allow bears or tigers on the ballroom floor, and the monkeys and dogs generally stay outside, too. especially if they are size L.

And I'm well aware of the size S cavaliar on a riding dog, it's been around since 3e, and it's very niche and still subject to many of the restrictions of above.

==Aelryinth

Like Ssalarn said, I don't think any of that is that ridiculous, especially in a game where you can be a giant crow. But more importantly, my point wasn't that horses should be allowed to do anything they want to, but rather, that if your GM rules horses can't run in a forest because of trees, as yours does, then why would you play a cavalier? Without your horse, you're somewhere between a version of a fighter with no weapon training or armor training and a bard with a limited version of inspire courage. A vanilla cavalier without a horse is about as bad as it gets, so if you know your GM's going to be stripping you of that class feature, why not play any other class?

Sorry to take this thread off topic.

You ride around on your horse inside a dungeon? Social situation? Sewer crawl? Random planar excursion?

You have a more permissive DM or play different modules then I do.

==Aelryinth

Why on earth would you play a cavalier if your GM was the kind of guy to say "Whoa!? A Horse in a Sewer?!?! That's preposterous. Now tentacle monsters, that makes sense."

Not really. If your GM will let you take it there's an awesome one from Curse of the Crimson Throne called Acadamae Graduate. It lets you summon as a standard action, but you have to make a fort save not to become fatigued. We let our wizard have it under the condition that he not raise his strength above 6 so that if he fails two in one day he becomes exhausted, drops his strength to 0, and is paralyzed.

If that's out, just consider that all of your summon monster spells are 1 turn casting times, so you're going to want to boost your concentration as much as possible. Be sure to take "Focused Mind" as a trait.

There are a few good ones (starlight summons, moonlight summons, sunlight summons) if you can cast summon nature's ally spells, but that's not on the Wizard list.

I really like the ranger's favored enemy ability. The slayer has the easy to use version of it, but it's just so boring to me to have something that gives you a small effect constantly rather than a huge boost in the right circumstances. The ranger also doesn't need to be fighting a favored enemy to be effective, he has a lot of other stuff going for him. When you find an evil outsider or undead or aberration and start hitting them with +6 to attack and damage rolls, that's much more rewarding to me than having a +1 or +2 against everything.

@Headfirst

I think that making it so that every race is good at every class does homogenize the races. To accomplish something where a gnome was as effective as a half-orc at being a barbarian you'd have to either erase some of the differences or provide enough options for every race that they basically weren't different anymore anyway.

The race differences make race choice compelling to me. For example, you say an elf wizard is better than a dwarf wizard in every way. I'd argue that getting 2 additional HP per level, having a +2 boost to my fort save, a +1 boost to my will save, and a stacking +2 to saves against spells and SLAs with the option to bump it up to +4 with steel soul are all reasons why dwarfs make great wizards compared to flimsy elves. Especially when you don't need the bonus to Spell Pen or the +1 DC from INT because you'll be buffing and summoning more than debuffing opponents. If we gave Dwarves the option to trade in Hardy or Weapon Familiarity for something like Elven Magic or Gnome Magic, it would just water down Elves and Gnomes.

Do a google search for YAPCG Sourceforge. It's a huge excel file called "Yet Another Pathfinder Character Generator". It's slow which can be obnoxious, but it's 100% free, the guys who manage it take bug reports seriously, and I haven't had it crash on me ever. If you go this route, in Excel, go to the Formula tab, and under Calculation Options select "Manual". That keeps the sheet from rerunning all the calculations until you hit F9 or the "CALCULATE" button in the lower left hand corner.

If you made character sketches for your guys, assemble them into one mighty fighting force, have it printed in an 8x10 glossy, and frame it. That's what we're doing for ours.

Race:
Keep trying to change his mind. A wisdom penalty is really harsh on an inquisitor. They have several class features based on WIS and you usually want to start with 16. If his GM is going to be really harsh, starting with a gimped stat of high importance might hurt. He could always play a Dhampir.

Domain:
If he's going to try to be pretty optimized, the Fur domain gives you enhanced speed (although it's a swift action to activate), and with boon companion (if allowed), he can have a full strength allosaurus or roc stomping around to tank for him. Otherwise all the travel domain ones are good due to the speed boost.

Feats:
I'm a big fan of Clustered Arrows. Otherwise if you ever fight a lich, or anything else with DR15/S or /B he's going to be completely useless damage wise. But the progression you have looks good.

Gear:
Bracer's of Falcon's Aim are way better than bracer's of archery, and cheaper to boot. Otherwise, there isn't much stuff specific to an inquisitor archer, just grab the basics.

Builds:
Personally, I'd probably just build straight inquisitor. Taking 3 levels of fighter pushes your Greater Bane ability back to level 15, and 7 extra average damage per hit is nothing to spit at, especially with all the extra arrows he'll be slinging around. I'm pretty biased against dips though, so it's your call.

The spell "Mad Monkeys". It's a nauseate against guys with low fort saves, a full BAB disarm every turn, tough to avoid damage, it can effect up to 4 people with its 10x10 area, and there are few things in this game cooler than a gang of rampaging monkeys.

And I don't object inherently to people playing Rogues or Fighters...nor I think do most others. We just feel like they shouldn't be penalized for doing so, and the fact that some people don't care about the penalties, while nice for them, doesn't mean said penalties aren't real.

Fair Enough. I tend to think power imbalance is only relevant if it's strong enough to interfere with someones ability to have a good time. In our game, with these classes, that was never the case.

As a GM yes I have seen the fighter and monk suffer first hand. Nobody has ever taken a rogue to high levels in my games.

And saying the fighter slays dragons without details is not saying much. <--Not an insult, but not all GM's run creatures the same way

It was certainly a team effort. We fought two before we started dying. Both times it went the same way. Our witch identified the dragon type with her insane Knowledge Arcana and cast haste, and our druid used the appropriate Protection from Energy, Communal. Our Nodachi wielding fighter shut down both encounters pretty handily with his buffs. The dude did a lot of damage on those 15-20 x2 crits with weapon specialization, and weapon training. The rogue opened up while the dragons were flatfooted (his INIT bonus was +11) and made them bleed.

Considering the other half of your party was two of the most powerful classes in the game, and who sounded like they were doing a good job supporting the Rogue and Fighter, you ended up with a party that was exactly where it should be. Sounds like the Rogue was running a "magical" race as well, which likely helped (I'm guessing he had Vulpine Pounce?). What if it hadn't been a witch and druid running control and buff/debuff though?...

The rogue was actually about as non-optimized as it gets. He wasn't running pounce, he was making ranged attacks from within 30 feet with a short bow. He did fine as long as it wasn't something immune to precision damage. To me it just seems a little silly to evaluate every class in a vacuum. You're going to be in a 4-5 man party in most cases, so the fact that you can build a well supported group with a fighter vs a barb seems like it makes the whole argument a wash.

If you'd like to see rogues or fighters buffed, great, I fully support you, but I disagree deeply with others who claim that there is "literally no reason to play a rogue".

I'm willing to accept that Rogues and Fighters are less powerful than some of the other options, but I'm wondering if people have really felt the effects of this when playing the game.

The reason I'm curious is that I recently wrapped up a game where our party had the following composition:

Fighter (no archetype)
Druid (no archetype)
Rogue (Kitsune Trickster archetype)
Witch (no archetype)

We dealt with everything that our GM threw at us with such ease that he eventually (around level 10) got frustrated, declared the CR system to be "broken", and started having us fight CR encounters of APL+5. At that point he started killing us, but prior to that our fighter was splitting heads every round, our kitsune rogue was tagging people with bleed and sneak attack damage before slipping back into our druid's obscuring mist, and our witch kept cackling to keep up the misfortune and slumber hexes. At no point did any of us feel overshadowed (well, maybe against elementals).

So, I guess my question is, if you can do this well with half your party being under-powered classes, why does it matter that there are more powerful ones out there? If your fighter slays ogres and dragons, who cares that a Barb could have done it a little better?

I really want a FAQ for this as well. I'm building a fell rider cavalier from the advanced race guide, and how overrun works is really important to that build. It makes sense to me that the mount (not the rider) is the one making the overrun, but then what the heck does it mean in the Advanced Race Guide when the fell rider gets rampage:

"Rampage (Ex): At 3rd level, a fell rider gains Trample as a bonus feat. The fell rider receives a +2 bonus on overrun attempts made while mounted. In addition, his mount gains a +2 bonus on damage rolls when making hoof attacks or using the trample monster ability, even when not overrunning. This ability replaces cavalier's charge."

Emphasis mine.

The rider is the one getting the bonus, right? And he only gets them while mounted? So is the rider the one making the overrun, even though he's mounted? Who's CMB do you use with the +2 bonus? And if it's the rider, can I take improved overrun and greater overrun and have those effects apply to my mounted overrun? The fell rider archetype seems pretty weak if you're trading in all the charge stuff for an overrun that provokes AoOs and doesn't trigger AoOs for you or your teammates.

Please give us an FAQ for this, it's really confusing and extremely important to the cavalier and fell rider.