Quexlaw's page

Excuse me for the necromancy, but I have to bring this up and bring a new perspective to the table.

To my understanding, it's a simple concept.

1) The Inquisitor has the feat.
2) The Inquisitor acts as if allies had the same feat, but they don't gain the benefits from it, while the Inquisitor does.

I read it as such, that the Inquisitor gains ALL BENEFITS from HIS PERSPECTIVE when reading the feat. As such, the ally gaining an AoO is the INQUISITOR'S BENEFIT, because I do have the feat, I act as if my allies had the feat, so when it's my turn and it reads "allies get an AoO", then it is MY teamwork feat that works and grants my allies an AoO.

However, when it's my ally's turn (it's not about the turns, just to give an example) and he gets hit, he actually does not have the feat, ergo me, his ally, which usually WOULD get the AoO if the ally actually had the feat, will NOT get the AoO.

So basically the rule is "when a teamwork feat states it does things, only execute the feat from the Inquisitor's perspective", as that is what they key of teamwork feats is.

It's basically "Your team has the feat multiple times, so when the requirements are fulfilled, profit from _each other_" (executing the feat multiple times from different players basically). So "my" teamwork feat works, which states they get an AoO, but theirs does not, because they don't actually have it. By benefit, they mean "benefit of having the feat".

Thoughts?

Good day to you guys,

I'm starting my first real Pathfinder campaign (I played one before but it didn't take the rules very seriously) and our GM wants to only use the CRB, the APG and the ACG, as well as UC as rulebooks.
However, after checking the APG, I decided to become an Inquisitor. After checking the inquisitions and other things, I noticed something weird though; most of the inquisitions aren't even from the APG, but from many different books! The ability "bane" is also from UE, not APG! I already asked our (inexperienced) GM and he said that it would be okay to make an exception, so that I could use bane even though it's technically not from the APG (but Inquisitor is and it is said that the Inquisitor has bane in APG..), and now I notice that most inquisitions, THE inquisitor domains basically, aren't even choosable if strictly sticking to the APG?

So, is there some kind of "general rule of thumb" how to handle those interdependent rulebooks? Would you strictly say "no" to all those inquisitions and abilities that are written in the APG but detailed in different books or would you say "yes", simply because the APG states them to be available? And if so, how about "choosing" things that are described in the APG, such as inquisitions? I mean, it would be weird to tell the player to choose a domain or inquisition and then providing like two or three different inquisitions, when most of them don't even provide new mechanics. For example, I wanted to play an Inquisitor who worships the Truth as an ideal, therefore the Inquisition of Truth would be an amazing fit and would be fun to use as well.