Think of it this way: It isn't that they have the feat that causes the AoO, it's just that you now see the opportunity because of the feat and the opportunity was there the whole time. It does not create it, it just reveals it. Therefor the fighter isn't "creating" a new opportunity, you're just that good at exploitation. Most characters require trained help to accomplish this, an inquisitor just needs a (lucky) warm body.
I know that's a bit of a stretch, but I'm lookin at Solo Tactics as the "I'm a rockstar" ability and I don't think it was the intention that anyone but the inquisitor would get to look cool (read: actively utilize the feats) as a direct result. If it was the intention to give your allies the spotlight, that's the way the class feature would be designed, but it wasn't.
Except that isn't how the ability is worded. It is worded that the AoO is caused because the person has an ability (BENEFIT of the Feat) that opens the target up to someone else to attack. If they do not have the benefit (lack the Feat) they do not open the opponent up for attack. Again I get that you want it to work that way, but the RAW doesn't let it work that way. Earlier I provided a wording for how you would like it to work and that wording isn't what Solo Tactics or Outflank have.
You are right it is a stretch only because you are trying to hang this "I'm a rockstar" ability on one specific feat. There are how many tactical feats? This one doesn't break the ideology behind the ability, it just doesn't work the way you'd like it to. You want the feat to be "selfish" so that the character gets the glory. The feat is actually "selfless" as it helps OTHERS. Think of it as the exception to the rule maybe? It isn't always about you, it is a group game and this feat helps the group, which in turn helps you. This feat was DESIGNED to give the spot light to someone else, that is how it is WRITTEN to work. If you don't like that, you could always not choose the feat right? That this "stupid" feat doesn't do anything good for my class ability and make me look good like a "rockstar" means it is a poor option for you, no one is making you take it...
|
First off, I never claimed that my post was anything BUT an opinion on how I'd run it.
Second, I know it's a stretch but I make this judgement because we already have a self-less tactical feat guy and that's the cavalier (takes the feats and grants them to the team by using up his action). I figure that the inquisitor was meant to be the selfish counterpart.
Third, as noted in my last post (which you seem to have skipped), the wording of the feat with respect to "you" versus "your ally" is irrelevant since the feat was written with the assumption that they would be interchangeable (since, with this one exception, both characters would have the feat anyway). They could have worded it "if either you or your ally gets a critical hit the enemy provokes an attack of opportunity from the other" but that would've been slightly clunky and less clear without adding meaning for the primary expected scenario of use.
Barring a FAQ I would follow the assumption noted in point 3, followed by evidence from point 2 to rule that the inquisitor gets an AoO if the ally criticals rather than the other way 'round.
Not a perfect ruling, but as the RAW isn't clear I'm doing what I can.
Or, as I've said before, the the ally's critical causes the Outflank-trained character to take advantage of the situation. The ally is not trained to take the advantage, but the Inquisitor has the feat and therefore is trained to take advantage of the dropping of the guard.
.
I've already admitted the impasse of this conversation, and only reentered it because there were others arguing that anything other than their interpretation of the rules was wrong. Having a differing opinion is fine, expected and encouraged, but calling someone wrong because they don't agree is taking it a bit too far.
.
I can only hope we get an official FAQ answer soon.
And what you are saying has been wrong every time. The listed BENEFIT: of the Outflank feat is that when the person with the feat makes a critical strike an AoO is given to an ally who is flanking that creature. The wording of the ability isn't what you want it to be, it doesn't work the way you are saying it.
It is wrong when the written rule says that the way it works is X, if you want to argue against that fine, but that doesn't make you right unless you can actually back it up with wording from the books that shows you to be correct. What is true is specific wording pointing out that the BENEFIT of a feat is not actually gained through Solo Tactics. That the feat Outflank has a listed Benefit that is not gained by Solo Tactics is what the rules actually say. Now we get to those who want the AoO to benefit the Inquisitor, the rules say that doesn't happen though. The only place the AoO in question is mentioned is in the BENEFIT of the feat. As the BENEFIT of the feat isn't actually possessed by the flanking ally they will NEVER EVER provoke an AoO FOR the inquisitor. However because the Inquisitor has the feat they WILL provoke AoO's for the ally.
As this is the way the rules are written, saying things are otherwise without providing text from the rules to prove the contradiction pretty much makes you wrong as far as RAW is concerned. I have NO problem with you saying it is something other than that in your game, however this is the Rules Forum for the game where what we are concerned with is what is written in the actual book and the rules text that explains it. Saying you think it should work one way is one thing, arguing against people who are pointing out with actual text in the book that it doesn't work the way you think is another. To make your point provide something other than "I think" (not calling you out specifically mind you). There is no shame in saying "I think it should work this way, but obviously the rules as written don't support that." But to continually argue against the written rule because you don't like that is not what the Rules forum is about.
The rules forum is here to provide someplace for people to come and see what the book/rules say about certain circumstances. It is here to allow people who have questions to find answers based on the RAW. Sometimes things are so vague and open ended that we can't do anything besides say "Hopefully we get an official answer" and let it be, other times (like this thread) the book actually has clear rules on what occurs and the posters are providing the pages and rules text and yet people who want it to work otherwise are arguing against that without providing anything in the rules to actually back them up.
First off, I never claimed that my post was anything BUT an opinion on how I'd run it.
Second, I know it's a stretch but I make this judgement because we already have a self-less tactical feat guy and that's the cavalier (takes the feats and grants them to the team by using up his action). I figure that the inquisitor was meant to be the selfish counterpart.
Third, as noted in my last post (which you seem to have skipped), the wording of the feat with respect to "you" versus "your ally" is irrelevant since the feat was written with the assumption that they would be interchangeable (since, with this one exception, both characters would have the feat anyway). They could have worded it "if either you or your ally gets a critical hit the enemy provokes an attack of opportunity from the other" but that would've been slightly clunky and less clear without adding meaning for the primary expected scenario of use.
Barring a FAQ I would follow the assumption noted in point 3, followed by evidence from point 2 to rule that the inquisitor gets an AoO if the ally criticals rather than the other way 'round.
Not a perfect ruling, but as the RAW isn't clear I'm doing what I can.
I can fully appreciate that :) But on the boards being all text, "my opinion" and "this is how it works" are pretty the same and the distinction can be lost. I'm not attacking you, I'm just going down the line of posts and attempting provide counterpoints to what is being said when it goes against the RAW. With that being said are we good?
Well as a judgment I'd say that might be over simplifying things. Just because 1 of the 11 teamwork feats in APG happens to be "selfless" that doesn't make the whole class selfless, the majority of the abilities are actually "selfish" and don't provide a bonus to anyone else when paired with solo tactics. Again it is more of the exception to the rule, this one feat doesn't break the archetype of "selfish". Also saying that it shouldn't be selfless as we already have a selfless character class... Well, why do bards, druids, oracles and whoever else heal when we already have a dedicated healer, the cleric. There is a lot of crossover between classes otherwise they would be pigeon holed into a specific role without any way to break out of that, Paizo has stated they want characters to have more options so sometimes things have crossover. It's to be expected and for a reason. Saying a class is borked because one ability helps someone else out is just silly really. You have you desire for what the class is, the rules don't back what you think they should be. That doesn't change what the rules say, it just makes it something you don't like.
I didn't skip it so much as not get to it yet as I was replying post by post :)
Wording for the feat is over ridden by the Solo Tactics, so the wording in question isn't the problem. The problem is the ally gets "feat-lite" they get a feat in title only, a feat minus the Benefit and the important part is the benefit, as that is where the wording concerning the AoO is contained.
With the "barring a FAQ" do you not care what RAW is? Why would an FAQ change that? The rules as written say one thing, what does a FAQ change if you are just playing by house rule?
RAW is actually clear, it just isn't what you want to it to be. Saying it isn't clear when several people have pointed out all the pertinent rules is generally just willfully ignoring something. Ignoring something isn't it not being "clear" just like being "creative" and saying that "you" and "your ally" are interchangeable when the feat doesn't say anything of the sort doesn't confuse it any more either. Asking for a FAQ in such a case is just saying "I don't like it so I don't want to play the way the book says it should be played" because there isn't a reason in the book to back up the way you'd want it to play out.
And all told that is fine, but there are some people who are interested in what the book says instead of what people's interpretation of it say, that is why they come to the Rules forum. These people are usually the ones who play in organized play and are actually restricted to what the book states and not creative interpretations.
The rules forum is here to provide someplace for people to come and see what the book/rules say about certain circumstances. It is here to allow people who have questions to find answers based on the RAW. Sometimes things are so vague and open ended that we can't do anything besides say "Hopefully we get an official answer" and let it be, other times (like this thread) the book actually has clear rules on what occurs and the posters are providing the pages and rules text and yet people who want it to work otherwise are arguing against that without providing anything in the rules to actually back them up.
There have been plenty of rules provided to suggest otherwise, and the matter is far from as clear as you suggest. Until there's an official answer, nothing has been proven either way. You appear to be as blind to a differing opinion as you claim others to be. You'll notice that nowhere did I say you were wrong--I in fact did not call you out at all. When interpreting rules, it quite often becomes necessary to read beyond the strict semantics of the words used and read their intent. By a strict semantic interpretation of Solo Tactics, the only "bonus" of Outflank is the extra +2 granted. That leaves neither flanking party the AoO, and is a perfectly valid interpretation of the words as written.
And I all but spelled out that I was interpreting the intent of the rules, but here it is:
I'm interpreting the Intent of Solo Tactics, when applied to Outflank. The intent of Solo Tactics is quite obviously not to give the ally any added benefit, but to give the Inquisitor the added benefits. It says so explicitly, and has been quoted ad nauseum throughout this thread.
Making personal attacks against people with differing opinions, and even against those who see how you came to your conclusions, is not what these forums are for, and I'll thank you to discontinue using me as a target of such. A civil discourse and debate cannot be had when either party engages in such tactics.
|
|
Lots of stuff....
I would tend that RAW *isn't* clear specifically because Solo Tactics was a badly written exception. The feats themselves operate in such a manner that the "you" and "your ally" are transposable*, meaning that the author should not have to write them in such a way as to plan for a badly written exception to their function. In this case arguments for either side ride their arguments on the "you" and "your ally" placed in these writings, which is an unreliable methodology.
In other words: Look at how they function by themselves first, *then* check what the modifier is (in this case, the Solo Tactics modifier). Wording only matters if its either bad enough that the first part isn't possible to nail down (obviously not the issue here) or if specific game-defined (i.e. in-glossary) terminology is used that has its own implications for how other things apply (in which case that understanding would be inherent to part 1, not part 2). Wording should not cross that boundary. Otherwise we're asking people to define "it" and that just gets silly. Instead it is much more reasonable to look for how the individual elements operate, then make logical conclusions based on that.In this case, the "Teamwork" feats all operate such that "you" and "your ally" are transposable phrases. "Solo Tactics" intends the inquisitor to get all the glory (hence why it says only you get the benefits). Toss in a teamwork feat with solo tactics and you get a feat that let's the inquisitor get AoOs when the ally criticals.
If I got hung up on stupid little word games every time I had to make a ruling I wouldn't get my game on. Instead I choose to ignore my legal council (aka my inner rules-lawyer) and play it out in a way that actually makes sense in light of the normal operation of the rules.
I know I'm toeing the line between RAI and RAW here, but I'm not willing to believe that these word games are actually getting us anywhere as players.
* Seriously. Go back and re-read all those feats making this switch. They still work the same. This SHOULD make sense since the assumption made when writing is that you are both equal. It's the inequality that screws it up.
There have been plenty of rules provided to suggest otherwise, and the matter is far from as clear as you suggest. Until there's an official answer, nothing has been proven either way. You appear to be as blind to a differing opinion as you claim others to be. You'll notice that nowhere did I say you were wrong--I in fact did not call you out at all. When interpreting rules, it quite often becomes necessary to read beyond the strict semantics of the words used and read their intent. By a strict semantic interpretation of Solo Tactics, the only "bonus" of Outflank is the extra +2 granted. That leaves neither flanking party the AoO, and is a perfectly valid interpretation of the words as written.
What rules have been provided otherwise, there have been many "I think this is what it should be" but nothing to contradict what I've placed up from the written descriptions of Solo Tactics ability and Outflank feat.
You are incorrect on the only bonus of Outflank being the +2. The Inquisitor has Outflank, the benefit section of the feat says
"Benefit: Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally."
That clearly states that the person who has the full/actual feat critical strikes and gives the ally an attack of opportunity. That right there is the Benefit of this feat. If the Inquisitor didn't have Solo Tactics and the ally didn't have this feat (even in name only) it wouldn't matter, nothing would happen. Because of Solo Tactics the ally is given the feat in name only so the Inquisitor gives the attack to the ally and gains the +4 total bonus.
And I all but spelled out that I was interpreting the intent of the rules, but here it is:
Intent is something that we cannot argue, we are not the people who wrote the rules or this wouldn't be an issue as the one of us who wrote it would say "Here it is, this is what it means." I don't care what the intent is, I care what the actual rules state. Arguing intent is a moronic as none of the people posting here actually know the intent. We are left with what written rules say. I'm here stating the written word, the logic and order of operation of the rules. Intent is perspective, RAW is far far less dependent on perspective and is easier to hash out.
I'm interpreting the Intent of Solo Tactics, when applied to Outflank. The intent of Solo Tactics is quite obviously not to give the ally any added benefit, but to give the Inquisitor the added benefits. It says so explicitly, and has been quoted ad nauseum throughout this thread.
INTENT, you fail to address the rules stating the complete opposite of what you are saying. Where does it say "explicitly" that the point of the ability is to give the inquisitor the benefit. It states that the Inquisitor can treat others as having the feats in name only. Unfortunately the FEAT, the important part, doesn't give the inquisitor the AoO, it gives the ally the AoO, this is EXPLICITLY STATED in the feat. The ability doesn't do anything to change that. I'm sorry you don't like it, I'm sorry this ability doesn't live up to your expectations but the rules written challenge your desired intent
Making personal attacks against people with differing opinions, and even against those who see how you came to your conclusions, is not what these forums are for, and I'll thank you to discontinue using me as a target of such. A civil discourse and debate cannot be had when either party engages in such tactics.
What personal attacks? All I have said is that others are wrong and given specific points to show why. All I have said is that if people want to play that way in their games fine, but this is a place for rules of the game, not house rules.
A teamwork feat says when these circumstances (both characters have this feat) there is a benefit given. Solo tactics say people are treated as having this feat but do not gain the benefit (which is a VERY specific and well documented portion of a feat). The AoO is a listed bonus given to an ally when someone with the feat makes a critical strike. End of story, case closed. This follows the rules of the feat, this follows the rules of the ability, this doesn't follow what you want from it. Two out of three ain't bad, especially when the last isn't something out of the book... Two out of Two is okay for me.
Here's what I think it boils down to: is the AoO tied to the feat, or to the critical hit?
I believe the former to be true; if the AoO is tied to the feat, then when the inquisitor scores a critical hit, his ally should receive an attack of opportunity; Outflank does not specify that the character's ally has to actually have the feat to gain the AoO:
In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
There are two conditions required to generate this AoO:
Once these two conditions are met, the player's ally gains an AoO. The benefit provided to the inquisitor in this case is not the extra attack, but the ability to cause his enemy to provoke an AoO from the inquisitor's teammate. In this way Outflank indirectly provides a benefit to the allies of a player utilizing it, similar to other feats that allow an entire party to benefit from their use, such as Greater Feint.
Finally, as per the solo tactics ability, unless an inquisitor's ally possesses Outflank, he does not benefit from the feat's effects:
|
|
@Heaven's Agent: By RAW, sure. However, I still contend that the feat was only written from that perspective arbitrarily. It would not matter whether you said "whenever you" and "from your ally" or "whenever your ally" and "from you" given that in every case but this one both characters would have the feat.
In addition, whenever your ally scores a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
Now, for all purposes *except* this one the above is identical. Unless the writers of the feat and the class feature were the same person, I doubt there was too much concern about this kind of wording issue when the feat was written, nor would every single feat be combed for this kind of issue by the writer of the class feature.
In that light I contend that the wording is just in an arbitrary order that works, not one that was meant to be strictly adhered to. With this in mind I believe either interpretation is equally valid.
I'll bring it up with my DM since one of our players is playing an inquisitor and see what he thinks for our games, but when I DM I'll likely rule that (barring a FAQ) it is selfish just like every other solo teamwork feat and the inquisitor gets the attack.
To be honest, I believe RAW is RAI in this instance; I truly think the feat was worded the way it is intentionally, specifically to ensure that it would function in the manner described for the purposes of an inquisitor's solo tactics ability. Further, because I think it was written this way intentionally, I doubt we will ever see an official clarification; why clarify something that is written correctly, and as a result doesn't necessarily need any clarification?
Ultimately, though, as with everything in this game we should all run with what we feel is right.
|
|
To be honest, I believe RAW is RAI in this instance; I truly think the feat was worded the way it is intentionally, specifically to ensure that it would function in the manner described for the purposes of an inquisitor's solo tactics ability. Further, because I think it was written this way intentionally, I doubt we will ever see an official clarification; why clarify something that is written correctly, and as a result doesn't necessarily need any clarification?
Ultimately, though, as with everything in this game we should all run with what we feel is right.
Though I respectfully disagree on the first point, I agree whole-heartedly with the second point :)
I would tend that RAW *isn't* clear specifically because Solo Tactics was a badly written exception. The feats themselves operate in such a manner that the "you" and "your ally" are transposable*, meaning that the author should not have to write them in such a way as to plan for a badly written exception to their function. In this case arguments for either side ride their arguments on the "you" and "your ally" placed in these writings, which is an unreliable methodology.
The problem with that is, Solo Tactics isn't a badly written exception. It covers all eleven feats that are designated "teamwork" without issue, that makes it well written. I find it semi amusing that you are arguing the problem is with Solo Tactics when the only issue is how you want one particular feat to interact with the ability. If you understood what you were arguing better, you'd realize that you should be arguing to reword the feat, EVERYTHING ELSE (all teamwork feats interact with Solo Tactics with out issue) works fine except you believe the feat should give the Inquisitor the extra AoO. Whether or not you want to believe it, your problem is actually the feat Outflank.
You argue that the terms are interchangeable, which is not the fact. Teamwork feats require two people, yes, but in no way does that make the terms interchangeable. Each person needs to go through the checks on their own to satisfy the requirements and gain the benefits. The feat is something each of the participating characters must have to gain a benefit. If a feat says "you" it means the person who has the feat, basic reading comprehension. When it says "ally" with the feat, it means someone else with the feat, again very basic. The assumption is that both you and the ally have the feat or else the bonuses don't exist as they are teamwork feats, but that does not mean a transposable "you" and "ally." I never even came close to arguing my case on "you" or "ally". I have pointed out that the ally who is gaining the pseudo-feat is not gaining the BENEFIT of the feat. To put it more simply, the target of your Solo Tactics is not gaining the Benefit of any teamwork feat you have. Their only purpose is to be a body who may help fulfill the requirements of YOUR (the inquisitor, AKA the person with Solo Tactics) feats. When YOUR (the inquisitor) feat goes to check if the other person has the feat, it sees a "Yes" and so YOU (the inquisitor) gain the benefits of YOUR (the inquisitor) feats. You are annoyed that one of the eleven teamwork feats actually provides an additional attack to someone else. Again, it isn't Solo Tactics that is the issue, you're problem is Outflank as you believe the person with the feat should get the attack.
In other words: Look at how they function by themselves first, *then* check what the modifier is (in this case, the Solo Tactics modifier). Wording only matters if its either bad enough that the first part isn't possible to nail down (obviously not the issue here) or if specific game-defined (i.e. in-glossary) terminology is used that has its own implications for how other things apply (in which case that understanding would be inherent to part 1, not part 2). Wording should not cross that boundary. Otherwise we're asking people to define "it" and that just gets silly. Instead it is much more reasonable to look for how the individual elements operate, then make logical conclusions based on that.
I have looked how they work by themselves, that was how I found out that one of the benefits of Outflank is an additional attack granted to the person flanking the creature you (the person with the feat) critically strike. Are you saying that the wording of Outflank DOES NOT give the person you are flanking with an attack? For simplicities sake I'll repost the feat to make it easier for you to read again.
Benefit: Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
Again, after reading verbatim the Outflank feat benefit section, you are arguing that the person with the feat (you, the term used in the feat) doesn't cause the ally you are flanking with to gain an AoO? Simple yes or no will suffice.
In this case, the "Teamwork" feats all operate such that "you" and "your ally" are transposable phrases. "Solo Tactics" intends the inquisitor to get all the glory (hence why it says only you get the benefits). Toss in a teamwork feat with solo tactics and you get a feat that let's the inquisitor get AoOs when the ally criticals.
If I got hung up on stupid little word games every time I had to make a ruling I wouldn't get my game on. Instead I choose to ignore my legal council (aka my inner rules-lawyer) and play it out in a way that actually makes sense in light of the normal operation of the rules.
Except that assumption (you know what they say about assuming things right?) isn't supported ANYWHERE. When going through your abilities, you have a list of things on your sheet. Each of those feat titles is a pointer to the actual feat in the book. Each of those feats are in effect completely rewritten on your sheet so that when you need them you can read them off to see what they do. Teamwork feats aren't interchangeable, the terms aren't interchangeable, you are making that up and putting things there that don't exist. All the Solo Tactics does is cut and past the Name of the feat and the prerequisites of the feat and put them on an ally's character sheet WITHOUT the Benefit section. It does this so that the Inquisitor's feat can activate once it sees that "feat"-lite and give the Inquisitor the Benefit of feats that are actually on his character sheet.
Solo Tactics doesn't intend for the Inquisitor to get all the glory, that is pure nonsense. [b]It doesn't care[b] who gets the glory, all it does is allow for the Inquisitors feats to activate when they normally wouldn't. A simple and elegant rule to enable all variations of a major class feature (free teamwork feats).
I know I'm toeing the line between RAI and RAW here, but I'm not willing to believe that these word games are actually getting us anywhere as players.
You aren't toeing the line between RAI and RAW, you are complaining about a feat interaction with a class ability, period. Your decision to have the feat work in a way completely against the written and working rule is actually willfully ignoring RAW and implementing a house rule all while taking the stance that the interaction between a feat and ability is the source of the issue... And then saying RAW is unclear... Word games, lol. Word games are all this game is, as much as you may hate rules lawyer-ing the truth is, rules lawyers are people that bring up issues that the designers didn't see and help the game by finding loop holes and nit picking the "word games" to see how the rules interact. These word games get us nowhere besides understanding how the game is run, you're right, that doesn't get us anywhere as players...
* Seriously. Go back and re-read all those feats making this switch. They still work the same. This SHOULD make sense since the assumption made when writing is that you are both equal. It's the inequality that screws it up.
I did, several times, and they all work the same - even outflank, you just don't like that Outflank's benefit happens to provide the attack to someone else, I get it. 100,000,000,000 people posting that the feat should give the attack to the inquisitor doesn't change the fact that the feat does indeed provide an attack to his flanking buddy. Maybe Paizo would rewrite it if that were the case (that so many people posted), but as it stands in plain and simple English when you and your ally are flanking and you critically strike a creature your ally gains an attack of opportunity on the creature struck.
@Heaven's Agent: By RAW, sure. However, I still contend that the feat was only written from that perspective arbitrarily. It would not matter whether you said "whenever you" and "from your ally" or "whenever your ally" and "from you" given that in every case but this one both characters would have the feat.
Well damn, you said that RAW states what you don't want, thank you. That leaves you trying to find a reason to make RAW work the way you want it and why does it matter at that point. I know for those of us in organized play games it makes a difference and that is why I argue/debate so vehemently - it actually matters for us. For you in a home game, who cares if RAW states it against what you want Stabbity, just house rule it ;) But I would respectfully request that be done in the appropriate forum and not here where RAW is the main sticking point! If you start another thread in the house rule/advice area I will happily post there and try to help with suggestions on how to make it work the way you want.
I seriously doubt it was arbitrarily done, Paizo is a relatively small tight knit group and I don't think this is a case of one hand not knowing what the other was doing. RAW works (if not the way you want obviously) and there are no hiccups in the rules interaction that break anything. The rules are well done in that respect and don't need to be rewritten for the books in play. They obviously didn't want to give the character a way to give themselves extra attacks, possibly because of some worry of abuse. I'd imagine it would involve high dex characters with high crit range weapons stringing together attacks until they run out of AoO's, but that would be a guess.|
|
Okay, I understand and can see where you're coming from.
But the reference to the terms "you" and "your ally" not being transposable in this particular instance is not true in the context in which I stated it. I specifically said this instance for a *very* good reason. And when I said *this* I meant "all teamwork feats before you take solo tactics into account." So by saying you re-read those feats and agree that they have the same benefit either way, you're agreeing with the only thing I was trying to say with that statement.
It may seem to you like I'm trying to twist the wording into the meaning I want, but I'm simply going about the analysis a completely different way then attempting to justify why the wording might not match up. I think it's you who's not getting what I'm trying to argue here.
I realize that "Solo Tactics" doesn't say in big bold letters "THIS IS A SELFISH ABILITY" on it, but it seems to be fairly obvious (at least to me) that that is what is intended. Hence why it says "only you gain the benefit." Many people are assuming this means the "Benefit:" that used as the beginning of a feat description, but I am not and am instead framing how one might allow that interpretation to work by analyzing how the wording has a circumstantial rather than deliberate connection to the Solo Tactics ability (from the perspective of the feat).
You: Wording of feat assumed deliberate + Assumption that "benefit" == "Benefit:" + Wording -> RAW?
Me : Wording of feat assumed circumstantial + Assumption that "Solo Tactics" and "only the inquisitor gets..." == "selfish" + Wording -> RAW?
Based on the above it's easy to see we're *both* making assumptions here, hence why neither of us can be strictly interpreted as being "RAW." Are your assumptions safer? Quite probably, but that doesn't make them not assumptions. Unless we get a FAQ on this we're both operating off of assumptions that can't be confirmed otherwise.
Your justifications: The developers definitely always double-check each-others intentions in wording for related abilities before publishing, and developers always use words that look like game terms (but aren't defined as such) as game terms.
My justifications: No developers are perfect, rules were made under a schedule and likely by different people who most probably did not double-check each-others' wording. Developers do not always use words not explicitly denoted as game terms on the assumption they will be treated as such. Not every use of the word "wall" refers to "Wall of..." Not every use of the word "range" refers to "Range:" etc.
In both cases our justifications for our assumptions would themselves be assumptions. But then, I'm assuming a lot about where you're coming from.
Anywho... it's my bed time (work and all), so I'll have to argue on at a later date. Also, my tiredness may make me sound like an belligerent idiot intent on flinging poo. Hopefully that isn't happening here >.>
|
|
@Heaven's Agent: By RAW, sure. However, I still contend that the feat was only written from that perspective arbitrarily. It would not matter whether you said "whenever you" and "from your ally" or "whenever your ally" and "from you" given that in every case but this one both characters would have the feat.Well damn, you said that RAW states what you don't want, thank you. That leaves you trying to find a reason to make RAW work the way you want it and why does it matter at that point.
I stated it was "RAW" because it is the most "perfect" in that it assumes no mistakes and that all things that look like game terminology are. This is what most people mean when they say "RAW." Not exactly a healthy system, but whatever.
*understood stuff*
.
It may seem to you like I'm trying to twist the wording into the meaning I want, but I'm simply going about the analysis a completely different way then attempting to justify why the wording might not match up. I think it's you who's not getting what I'm trying to argue here.
.
I realize that "Solo Tactics" doesn't say in big bold letters "THIS IS A SELFISH ABILITY" on it, but it seems to be fairly obvious (at least to me) that that is what is intended. Hence why it says "only you gain the benefit." Many people are assuming this means the "Benefit:" that used as the beginning of a feat description, but I am not and am instead framing how one might allow that interpretation to work by analyzing how the wording has a circumstantial rather than deliberate connection to the Solo Tactics ability (from the perspective of the feat).
As we're debating RAW, I will fully admit I am not at all comfortable reading more into something than is written. Again this is something I try to avoid as we cannot know the intent as well. So, when reading something I try to take it at literal, face value. Trying to read into something is akin to saying, "it doesn't say it isn't so it is possible" and I'm sure you understand where the danger is in that. Now I will also agree sometimes you can't just take things literally because if we did, take Solo Tactics (for example)literally, no one would get the AoO from the feat as it technically isn't a bonus.
Now that said my only assumption is that when the ability takes and refers to the "bonuses" of the feat I take that to mean the "Benefit:". Feats are described often as an additional benefit over the normal situations. Some feats even say "Normal:" and indicate what would happen if you didn't have the feat.
You: Wording of feat assumed deliberate + Assumption that "benefit" == "Benefit:" + Wording -> RAW?
Me : Wording of feat assumed circumstantial + Assumption that "Solo Tactics" and "only the inquisitor gets..." == "selfish" + Wording -> RAW?
You are taking way too many liberties in order to get your desired effect in this example. Not only are you assuming that it is supposed to be selfish (when it just triggers a yes the inquisitors teamwork feats are active because the allies have these "feats" as well) but you are trying to cherry pick a particular effect (the AoO). You are saying you should be able to choose what is a beneficial effect and that has no precedent at all here. Also for your transposable terms I know you are wrong with that as the core rule book addresses it (if you read PFRPG pg 113 and APG pg 150, the heading Feat Descriptions and then the sub heading Benefit) it specifically states what "you" is. Teamwork feat or regular feat or any type of feat, when reading the description the term "you" has an established and defined subject to refer to - the character who has the feat.
Based on the above it's easy to see we're *both* making assumptions here, hence why neither of us can be strictly interpreted as being "RAW." Are your assumptions safer? Quite probably, but that doesn't make them not assumptions. Unless we get a FAQ on this we're both operating off of assumptions that can't be confirmed otherwise.
Well again, my assumption is [i]bonuses of a feat[i] = Benefit:. If we are going to argue strict RAW, bonuses are strictly the numeric values added by the feat and so no one at all gets the AoO. My assumption is giving the character the benefit of the doubt and allowing it to do more than a strict reading of the ability says. If so, strict reading of RAW wouldn't allow Duck and Cover to reroll, Lockout wouldn't allow you to act in the surprise round, Outflank wouldn't allow for your ally to take an AoO, Paired Opportunists wouldn't allow you to take an AoO, Precise strike wouldn't allow you do deal extra damage, Shield wall wouldn't give you cover, Shielded caster wouldn't halve the DC, and Swap places wouldn't allow you to change squares.
That takes a HUGE amount of utility from the ability, but that is in fact the true RAW reading as bonuses are the only thing gained by Solo Tactics.
Your justifications: The developers definitely always double-check each-others intentions in wording for related abilities before publishing, and developers always use words that look like game terms (but aren't defined as such) as game terms.My justifications: No developers are perfect, rules were made under a schedule and likely by different people who most probably did not double-check each-others' wording. Developers do not always use words not explicitly denoted as game terms on the assumption they will be treated as such. Not every use of the word "wall" refers to "Wall of..." Not every use of the word "range" refers to "Range:" etc.
So because there are possible mistakes that gives you carte blanche to make any and all assumptions, to disregard well written rules and specific terms and to basically say "well they are fallible so I can infer anything I'd like even if the wording states otherwise cause it could be wrong."
Well I'll stop assuming because you're right I was operating under an assumption and start a new post pertaining to RAW and the OP's question.Get some rest ;-) And by no means have you been overly nasty. I know you are in another thread that I am posting (and I think we're on the same side there) and hopefully you realize that I'm not saying I'm infallible (I've already admitted I was wrong there once I believe), just that I'm truly trying to hash out what RAW is for these rules.
Upon discussing RAW and RAI with Stabbity, the ability Solo Tactics specifically states that only bonuses from the feats are given to an Inquisitor with Solo Tactics. Bonuses are defined as:
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
With that revelation, what we've been arguing on the thread is moot, as the AoO isn't a bonus, it would never come into play from Solo Tactics.
Here is a quick list of teamwork feats that have a benefit that is not just a bonus (and so you wouldn't get the full benefit of the feat from Solo Tactics):
Duck and Cover
Lockout
Outflank
Paired Opportunists
Precise Strike
Shield Wall
Shielded Caster
Blave, your option D it is sadly :-( Thanks for giving us know it alls a chance to prove how foolish we are!
EDIT: I personally hope they change the wording to something like or add a "At (insert higher level than 3rd) an inquisitor now gains the entire Benefit: from her teamwork feats from Solo Tactics." As it seems rather weak by RAW now.
|
|
Sky, you continually miss what I'm trying to say with the transposition thing. I'm not trying to imply that in any general case that those words are transposable, they're not. I'm saying that solely for the case of teamwork feats with no exceptions being applied they are transposable because it doesn't modify the result to do so. A conditional commutative property, if you will. As I said in my previous post, you already admitted that this was true when you agreed that swapping the terms did not change the effect of those feats.
The point I derived from this was that unless the authors of the feat and the class ability were the same person, the probability of the author of the feat assuming that they were commutative is rather high.
I don't go around assuming all wording is wrong, but when I see certain things that seem obviously wrong or contradictory (like DCs set to different values in different places, magic items with weird prices, etc) I try to judge what the chances are that it was an actual mistake by comparing the assumed intentions with the result. Typos and oversights should not be considered RAW. Just because there is no stated penalty for not sleeping doesn't mean you should be able to get away with it. If someone typos "enhancement" bonus as "enhancemen" bonus, you shouldn't assume it's really a different bonus type.
Slayer is a good example of an ability that had a major oversight slip into the final book (it's useless as written). Note that that ability is in the same class as the one being discussed.
All that said, if the words of the Solo Tactics feat said "bonus" rather than "benefit," then that's a whole different matter. Bonus *is* a very specific game term that is defined and should be adhered to.
Typos and oversights should not be considered RAW.
Yes, but in this instance, and other like it, how does someone who did not author such an ability determine that the text contains a typo or oversight? We do not know if such things are done in error, or if they are intended to function as described.
All GMs develop their own interpretation of the rules as intended, and that's how the game is designed. However, for the purposes of rules discussions such as these we have to base all arguments on the idea that RAW is RAI; we simply have no way of knowing how the author(s) envisioned this ability to function, unless they clarify their intention in some manner.
All that said, if the words of the Solo Tactics feat said "bonus" rather than "benefit," then that's a whole different matter. Bonus *is* a very specific game term that is defined and should be adhered to.
It does; I'll still run the ability as I described, you will run it as you have, but Skylancer has found the overall solution. By the RAW, the only benefit from Outflank gained by an inquisitor, specifically resulting from the solo tactics ability, is an increased flanking bonus. As no other benefits from the feat are actually considered bonuses, solo tactics alone does not allow them to function.
|
|
+2 extra to-hit when flanking is nothing to sneeze at.
It's difficult to tell whether something was intended to be written a certain way, but it some cases it seems obvious. Maybe I need a new term here, RAIW (Rules as intended to be written) that describes what you believe the authors were trying to do when they wrote something as far as wording ("Did they mean this as a game term or not?" or "Was this a typo of X?") rather than reading any further ("Is this meant to be a selfish ability?") as RAI generally does.
So RAIW, I believe that the order of usage of "you" and "your ally" was just the more convenient wording, not something thought of as being used extensively as argument ammo. Also RAIW, I don't believe that usage of the term "benefit" should automatically mean "Benefit:" since it isn't strictly defined as a game term. However, RAI I also believe that the inquisitor ability is supposed to be selfish. Combining those I believe that (had it said "benefit") the inquisitor gets the AoO and the flanking friend triggers it. 2xRAIW + RAI. By strict RAW (also if it had said benefit) the fighter would get the AoO.
Anywho, the point was rendered moot when it was revealed that the wording used the word "bonus" rather then "benefit." Good arguing, all! Sky ended up defeating everyone (including themselves) with the "bonus" thing.
Now I want a croissant.
Upon discussing RAW and RAI with Stabbity, the ability Solo Tactics specifically states that only bonuses from the feats are given to an Inquisitor with Solo Tactics. Bonuses are defined as:
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.With that revelation, what we've been arguing on the thread is moot, as the AoO isn't a bonus, it would never come into play from Solo Tactics.
Here is a quick list of teamwork feats that have a benefit that is not just a bonus (and so you wouldn't get the full benefit of the feat from Solo Tactics):
Duck and Cover
Lockout
Outflank
Paired Opportunists
Precise Strike
Shield Wall
Shielded CasterBlave, your option D it is sadly :-( Thanks for giving us know it alls a chance to prove how foolish we are!
EDIT: I personally hope they change the wording to something like or add a "At (insert higher level than 3rd) an inquisitor now gains the entire Benefit: from her teamwork feats from Solo Tactics." As it seems rather weak by RAW now.
That definition is just the most common definition but not the only one. It says that right under Common Terms. I don't think you should take it to apply like that where it breaks over 1/2 dozen feats. That's not very logical.
Of course if they changed the word in Teamwork Feats and Solo Tactic from Bonus to Benefit it would make a lot more sense. But I think we can all agree that the bonus is not just the definition under Common Terms. Actually if you take those definitions it breaks lots of stuff when that specific definition is used instead of the common dictionary definition.
That definition is just the most common definition but not the only one. It says that right under Common Terms. I don't think you should take it to apply like that where it breaks over 1/2 dozen feats. That's not very logical.
There are no other definitions of the term, at least as far as I'm aware. If you know of one, what is it, and where can it be found?
I think you're misinterpreting the brief paragraph immediately after the section heading. It's not stating that the following list are the most common definitions of some terms. It's saying that the following list includes the definitions of the most common terms themselves.
In other word, here are the definitions of the terms a player is most likely to encounter when playing the game. Other terms exist, but these are the most likely to appear. It's not claiming that any of therms in the section have alternate definitions.
That definition is just the most common definition but not the only one. It says that right under Common Terms. I don't think you should take it to apply like that where it breaks over 1/2 dozen feats. That's not very logical.There are no other definitions of the term, at least as far as I'm aware. If you know of one, what is it, and where can it be found?
I think you're misinterpreting the brief paragraph immediately after the section heading. It's not stating that the following list are the most common definitions of some terms. It's saying that the following list includes the definitions of the most common terms themselves.
In other word, here are the definitions of the terms a player is most likely to encounter when playing the game. Other terms exist, but these are the most likely to appear. It's not claiming that any of therms in the section have alternate definitions.
How about the dictionary definition of the actual word.
Bonus: Something extra that is good; An extra sum given as a premium, e.g. to an employee; To pay a bonus, premium
It fits the pathfinder common terms as a numerical bonus is something extra and good. It also fits non numerical bonus like an attack of opportunity when you normally wouldn't be able to take one.
I think what the section is getting at is saying that +1 moral bonus to hit is a bonus and has type that doesn't stack with other bonuses of the same type. I don't think it's meant say only numerical bonus apply in Pathfinder.
How about the dictionary definition of the actual word.
In some cases it's inappropriate to apply real-world semantics and terminology to game rules. This is one such instance; in Pathfinder, the term "bonus" is specifically defined within the rules of the game. Therefore, within the context of the game's rules, it has no other meaning.
As defined by the rules of the game, the term "bonus" only applies to "... numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores". Unless it is defined differently elsewhere within the game, there is no other definition for the purpose of Pathfinder rules discussions. You as a GM are free to interpret things differently, but realize you are then applying house rules to you game.
How about the dictionary definition of the actual word.In some cases it's inappropriate to apply real-world semantics and terminology to game rules. This is one such instance; in Pathfinder, the term "bonus" is specifically defined within the rules of the game. Therefore, within the context of the game's rules, it has no other meaning.
As defined by the rules of the game, the term "bonus" only applies to "... numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores". Unless it is defined differently elsewhere within the game, there is no other definition for the purpose of Pathfinder rules discussions. You as a GM are free to interpret things differently, but realize you are then applying house rules to you game.
I agree, I was just pointing out that there was another definition of bonus.
My personal opinion is I think word bonus as used in both teamwork feats description and Solo Tactics should be benefits as that how the feats are described. A typo maybe?
My personal opinion is I think word bonus as used in both teamwork feats description and Solo Tactics should be benefits as that how the feats are described. A typo maybe?
Perhaps, but equally likely to have been intentional. We have to trust the RAW are the RAI, unless the designers tell us otherwise.
My personal opinion is I think word bonus as used in both teamwork feats description and Solo Tactics should be benefits as that how the feats are described. A typo maybe?Perhaps, but equally likely to have been intentional. We have to trust the RAW are the RAI, unless the designers tell us otherwise.
True but raw doesn't appear to work when you use bonus as only numerical.
The following Teamwork feats all have bonuses that aren't numerical. Some have part of the benefit as numerical but some are 100% non numerical like swap places and precise strike.Precise strike
Pair Opportunist
Out Flank
Lookout
Swap Places
Shield caster
Shield Wall
So I don't think they'd make feats that aren't usable regardless of solo tactics.
So say you try to swap places. Both of you have the teamwork feat, both of you are the same size, both of you are adjacent to each other so you meet the conditions. Now apply the bonus, by the definition under common terms there is no bonus because there is no numerical value to add. Therefore this feat does nothing.
I don't think that was intentional. I think they just misused the word "bonus" as per their definition under common terms. But if you take the Teamwork Feat definition as the way to go then anything a team work feat grants under their benefit is a bonus. I see this a possible as Page 150 of the APG under Teamwork feats say the following:
"Team work feats grant large bonuses, but they only function under certain circumstances. In most cases, these feats require an ally who also posses the feat to positioned carefully on the battlefield. Team work feats provide no bonus if the listed conditions are not met. Note that allies who paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats."
So how I read that is this say the Teamwork feats grant bonuses but these don't need to be numerical. Stretching it bit for sure but otherwise the feats are mostly useless by 100% RAW.
Sky, you continually miss what I'm trying to say with the transposition thing. I'm not trying to imply that in any general case that those words are transposable, they're not. I'm saying that solely for the case of teamwork feats with no exceptions being applied they are transposable because it doesn't modify the result to do so. A conditional commutative property, if you will. As I said in my previous post, you already admitted that this was true when you agreed that swapping the terms did not change the effect of those feats.[/b]
What possible reason would there be to assume that things are transposable for a specific corner case (this feat Outflank and the Solo Tactics ability) and NOT state that is the case, especially when the written rule works for every other situation? That makes completely no sense at all. YOU want the benefit of the feat to be an attack that the Inquisitor gets when the person without the feat crits the opponent. I understand what you are arguing but again the wording of the feat doesn't back you on this, trying to construct a reason by saying because teamwork feats are special in some way that isn't documented in the rules is nothing more than wishful thinking. You are in effect saying because the feat is based on two characters working in tandem, it is implied that the terms are interchangeable for determining benefit. Problem is that the the term "you" is specifically called out to be something (no longer transposable) and the feat has a strict and specific benefit described which both characters are NOT getting (only the inquisitor gains it) which is in fact an exception being applied. Getting an additional attack is most definitely beneficial or could be considered a bonus, BUT it is a listed benefit of having the feat and the criteria of producing the attack aren't being met so the inquisitor doesn't get it...
I never said that, I said that all the feats weren't broken by the application of Solo Tactics and so it was operating properly as written and well thought out. That as they would continue to provide the described benefit to the inquisitor and give the inquisitor the additional benefit when their own feat got the false positive means that no additional issues were actually occurring as you were saying there was. That they were written and operated as intended and that nothing was wrong with them.
The point I derived from this was that unless the authors of the feat and the class ability were the same person, the probability of the author of the feat assuming that they were commutative is rather high.
I don't go around assuming all wording is wrong, but when I see certain things that seem obviously wrong or contradictory (like DCs set to different values in different places, magic items with weird prices, etc) I try to judge what the chances are that it was an actual mistake by comparing the assumed intentions with the result. Typos and oversights should not be considered RAW. Just because there is no stated penalty for not sleeping doesn't mean you should be able to get away with it. If someone typos "enhancement" bonus as "enhancemen" bonus, you shouldn't assume it's really a different bonus type.
Slayer is a good example of an ability that had a major oversight slip into the final book (it's useless as written). Note that that ability is in the same class as the one being discussed.
You're case isn't a derivation, it is a twisting of documented terms and reading between the lines of the already functional rules. You speak of probability but you're actually again trying to make things work the way you want them, you are arguing intent. If the rules DIDN'T work at all we could get into probability I guess, but the written rules do work, just not the way you'd like them too. In this case, as the rules actually work, there isn't anything really weird to even cause the vast majority of people to even question it (this is the first post to even come out about it no?) so now we're looking for a mistake?? I don't buy it, I buy you don't like the rule and want it to be something else and are basically grasping at straws. This isn't a case of "typo's or oversights" because it works and the benefit is an actual working mechanic, it just doesn't do what you envisioned it as... And in fact typo's and oversights are indeed RAW until corrected. I agree there are a lack of rules for sleep, but there are rules for the feat and ability interaction AND THEY WORK as is; Some are obvious typos like spelling issues, but this isn't the case things are spelled out and done so correctly; Slayer is useless I'll agree, but that isn't some corner case that only has a problem that a few people who want to be a "rockstar" see with one specific feat interacting the way they don't like with a class ability. We're talking glaring obvious versus something that works as written, and I'm saying because of ALL that it works properly. I mean what you are really saying is something like this: "The rules do work as written, but if you look at the combination this way, and this term is twisted in this way, saying it in this way means using this feat and this ability could get this character an extra attack because it is beneficial and it makes sense for them as this seems like selfish class" Most people would call that munchkinism... I'm not calling you a munchkin mind you, but stepping back and trying to look at things in a semi objective way, can you argue that comparison?
All that said, if the words of the Solo Tactics feat said "bonus" rather than "benefit," then that's a whole different matter. Bonus *is* a very specific game term that is defined and should be adhered to.
Well as I pointed out, you are right, it is a very specific term and so the argument about a corner case regarding something that isn't defined as a bonus means nothing. I don't particularly like the RAW regarding this situation now, but it is what it is. RAW.
Again, I do get what you are saying, but unfortunately without a lot of reading between the lines which has no backing or precedent and only makes sense with a specific corner case... Well it is an argument that doesn't have anything going for it other than "I think it should work this way."
Good arguing, all! Sky ended up defeating everyone (including themselves) with the "bonus" thing.
Now I want a croissant.
Agreed, it is always good to try and consider all points of view of something and one of the things the boards are good for is finding someone who thinks of things in a way you don't (even if you all don't agree). At worst it opens your eyes to things you might not have seen otherwise.
Bagel for me...
I agree, I was just pointing out that there was another definition of bonus.
.
My personal opinion is I think word bonus as used in both teamwork feats description and Solo Tactics should be benefits as that how the feats are described. A typo maybe?
In RAW the definition of the term in game trumps external wording if one exists.
I agree and that was the assumption I was going on originally, using it in a general sense, but that becomes the realm of house rules (and how I'd want to run it) instead of RAW. Typo means that it was misspelled or otherwise a mistake in printing, which it wasn't. The other option is that it wasn't meant to be "bonus" which in turn requires you to be aware of what it was meant to be, knowing the "intent," which none of us know.
True but raw doesn't appear to work when you use bonus as only numerical.
The following Teamwork feats all have bonuses that aren't numerical. Some have part of the benefit as numerical but some are 100% non numerical like swap places and precise strike.
.
Precise strike
Pair Opportunist
Out Flank
Lookout
Swap Places
Shield caster
Shield Wall
.
So I don't think they'd make feats that aren't usable regardless of solo tactics.
.
So say you try to swap places. Both of you have the teamwork feat, both of you are the same size, both of you are adjacent to each other so you meet the conditions. Now apply the bonus, by the definition under common terms there is no bonus because there is no numerical value to add. Therefore this feat does nothing.
.
I don't think that was intentional. I think they just misused the word "bonus" as per their definition under common terms. But if you take the Teamwork Feat definition as the way to go then anything a team work feat grants under their benefit is a bonus. I see this a possible as Page 150 of the APG under Teamwork feats say the following:
.
"Team work feats grant large bonuses, but they only function under certain circumstances. In most cases, these feats require an ally who also posses the feat to positioned carefully on the battlefield. Team work feats provide no bonus if the listed conditions are not met. Note that allies who paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats."
.
So how I read that is this say the Teamwork feats grant bonuses but these don't need to be numerical. Stretching it bit for sure but otherwise the feats are mostly useless by 100% RAW.
Raw does work, just not as well as if it meant something else or another specific term were used. Just because one meaning is less beneficial than another doesn't mean it "doesn't work."
Technically only 3 feats wouldn't provide some sort of beneficial adjustment through Solo Tactics, all others (8 feats) give some sort of bonus to a roll. Inquisitors get a total of 6 teamwork feats from class levels so it doesn't break 1/2 the feats. Depending on feat choice it doesn't even come into play at all or break anything. Teamwork feats usually require 2 characters to invest a limited resource in order to get any benefit. That Solo Tactics allows the inquisitor to gain even partial benefit from their feats without another character investing that resourse is in fact a "bonus" in and of itself. Again, not as nice but still very functional. Again we are getting into what you "think" or what you "perceive the intention" to have been, it still doesn't change what is written in the book. You aren't the designer of the rules so your only option is to ignore the RAW and house rule what you want. Again, the number of feats rendered "useless" isn't nearly as bad as you are saying and with even a little forethought you will never not be getting a bonus using solo tactics. If absolutely want to have all your feats work to full effect, convince your party members to take them. Regardless a bonus is a bonus in my book and is better than having nothing at all without the class ability.
So what you're saying is that this subject really needs a FAQ..?
No, I'm saying they need to errata that mo fo to squash this totally ;)
True but raw doesn't appear to work when you use bonus as only numerical.
The following Teamwork feats all have bonuses that aren't numerical. Some have part of the benefit as numerical but some are 100% non numerical like swap places and precise strike.
.
Precise strike
Pair Opportunist
Out Flank
Lookout
Swap Places
Shield caster
Shield Wall
.
So I don't think they'd make feats that aren't usable regardless of solo tactics.
.
So say you try to swap places. Both of you have the teamwork feat, both of you are the same size, both of you are adjacent to each other so you meet the conditions. Now apply the bonus, by the definition under common terms there is no bonus because there is no numerical value to add. Therefore this feat does nothing.
.
I don't think that was intentional. I think they just misused the word "bonus" as per their definition under common terms. But if you take the Teamwork Feat definition as the way to go then anything a team work feat grants under their benefit is a bonus. I see this a possible as Page 150 of the APG under Teamwork feats say the following:
.
"Team work feats grant large bonuses, but they only function under certain circumstances. In most cases, these feats require an ally who also posses the feat to positioned carefully on the battlefield. Team work feats provide no bonus if the listed conditions are not met. Note that allies who paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats."
.
So how I read that is this say the Teamwork feats grant bonuses but these don't need to be numerical. Stretching it bit for sure but otherwise the feats are mostly useless by 100% RAW.Raw does work, just not as well as if it meant something else or another specific term were used. Just because one meaning is less beneficial than another doesn't mean it "doesn't work."
Technically only 3 feats wouldn't provide some sort of beneficial adjustment through Solo Tactics, all others (8 feats)...
This argument wasn't about solo tactic though. I'm meaning Team Work feats don't work as the definition of Teamwork feats also calls them bonuses same as solo tactics. That's what I'm getting at with Swap Places if you go exactly with how RAW is.
I agree with you on Solo tactics. Out flank as written only supplies +4 numerical bonus for flanking. That I can make sense of. But then I read Teamwork feats and I'm left wondering about how that same ruling applies here. If you ignore the line about bonuses everything is fine but that line is there. And here I thought I had it nice clear till you guys went brought the PF definition bonus and every went down the Crapper. FAQ for sure!
For now I think we will house rule benefit in place of bonus in those two locations.
This argument wasn't about solo tactic though. I'm meaning Team Work feats don't work as the definition of Teamwork feats also calls them bonuses same as solo tactics. That's what I'm getting at with Swap Places if you go exactly with how RAW is.
I agree with you on Solo tactics. Out flank as written only supplies +4 numerical bonus for flanking. That I can make sense of. But then I read Teamwork feats and I'm left wondering about how that same ruling applies here. If you ignore the line about bonuses everything is fine but that line is there. And here I thought I had it nice clear till you guys went brought the PF definition bonus and every went down the Crapper. FAQ for sure!
For now I think we will house rule benefit in place of bonus in those two locations.
I see what you are saying, but what you are calling a definition is not in fact a definition. It is a description (the text following the Teamwork Feats heading is the only place I see that might fit what you are talking about). The only feats that are considered are those feats with the category "Teamwork", just like the only feats that are considered as feats are those with the category "Combat." Categories typically being in parentheses (or brackets for you UKers) after the name of the feat.
Even if it were a definition, there is always the specific rule overrides the general rule when it comes to these things. The general description being that they (teamwork feats) provide a large bonus. If the feat is specifically worded to provide an effect that doesn't follow the general rule, the feat is what you go by. This would allow the feat to function normally between two characters even though it isn't a strict numeric bonus and consequently wouldn't throw a monkey wrench in the Solo Tactics either.
This argument wasn't about solo tactic though. I'm meaning Team Work feats don't work as the definition of Teamwork feats also calls them bonuses same as solo tactics. That's what I'm getting at with Swap Places if you go exactly with how RAW is.
I agree with you on Solo tactics. Out flank as written only supplies +4 numerical bonus for flanking. That I can make sense of. But then I read Teamwork feats and I'm left wondering about how that same ruling applies here. If you ignore the line about bonuses everything is fine but that line is there. And here I thought I had it nice clear till you guys went brought the PF definition bonus and every went down the Crapper. FAQ for sure!
For now I think we will house rule benefit in place of bonus in those two locations.
I see what you are saying, but what you are calling a definition is not in fact a definition. It is a description (the text following the Teamwork Feats heading is the only place I see that might fit what you are talking about). The only feats that are considered are those feats with the category "Teamwork", just like the only feats that are considered as feats are those with the category "Combat." Categories typically being in parentheses (or brackets for you UKers) after the name of the feat.
Even if it were a definition, there is always the specific rule overrides the general rule when it comes to these things. The general description being that they (teamwork feats) provide a large bonus. If the feat is specifically worded to provide an effect that doesn't follow the general rule, the feat is what you go by. This would allow the feat to function normally between two characters even though it isn't a strict numeric bonus and consequently wouldn't throw a monkey wrench in the Solo Tactics either.
I agree with you specific over rides generic in the case of the Teamwork feats description. That makes sense and Teamwork feats work. But then why would this not apply in exactly the same with Solo tactics?
So the team work feat is the most general, Solo tactics is more specific, and the particular teamwork feat is the most specific. So Teamwork feats work if you meat the conditions, solo tactics allow you to override on conditions, that being the your ally needs the feat, the feat provides a benefit with more conditions that must met. That seems to make sense wouldn't you think?
|
Solo Tactics + Outflank
My understanding is that when the Inquisitor Crits, the beast provokes an AoO from the fellow flanking.
Just keep in mind, that just because something provokes an AoO doesn't mean that it will generate an attack due to:
a) the flanking person is out of AoOs
b) the flanking person only has one and would rather use it on a spellcaster in range
c) the flanking person is in a situation where he wants to keep his AoO available for use with some other feat (like Stand Still).
Just my 2 cents.
The way I personally see this is that an AoO is considered a benefit (free attack, not sure if anyone can really argue that point).
A benefit, yes. English definition. The fighter, as well as the entire team, and possibly the village you are defending, all benefit from someone hitting that goblin.
However, it is not the Benefit from the feat. So if Solo Tactics gets reworded to say "whether the inquisitor receives a Benefit from her teamwork feats..." then it would specifically apply to the "Benefit" section of the feat, which is the ability to cause the monster to provoke, not the ability to take an AoO against a monster which has provoked.
Someone else can benefit (English definition) from the Inquisitors teamwork feats. That +2 to his attacks benefits the team because he's more likely to hit, and more likely to drop an enemy. However, no one else would gain the "Benefit:" abilities and bonuses from the feats unless they have taken them.
So the team work feat is the most general, Solo tactics is more specific, and the particular teamwork feat is the most specific.
I think I see what you mean, but Solo Tactics is more specific than the feat. ST grants you a limited subset of the feats Benefit (the Bonus only) whereas a teammate actually having the feat grants you the entire Benefit.
So an Inq with Solo Tactics gain a little bit of an edge from his Teamwork feats, but not as much of an edge as he would if his teammates actually took the feat.
The way I personally see this is that an AoO is considered a benefit (free attack, not sure if anyone can really argue that point).A benefit, yes. English definition. The fighter, as well as the entire team, and possibly the village you are defending, all benefit from someone hitting that goblin.
However, it is not the Benefit from the feat. So if Solo Tactics gets reworded to say "whether the inquisitor receives a Benefit from her teamwork feats..." then it would specifically apply to the "Benefit" section of the feat, which is the ability to cause the monster to provoke, not the ability to take an AoO against a monster which has provoked.
Someone else can benefit (English definition) from the Inquisitors teamwork feats. That +2 to his attacks benefits the team because he's more likely to hit, and more likely to drop an enemy. However, no one else would gain the "Benefit:" abilities and bonuses from the feats unless they have taken them.
So the team work feat is the most general, Solo tactics is more specific, and the particular teamwork feat is the most specific.I think I see what you mean, but Solo Tactics is more specific than the feat. ST grants you a limited subset of the feats Benefit (the Bonus only) whereas a teammate actually having the feat grants you the entire Benefit.
So an Inq with Solo Tactics gain a little bit of an edge from his Teamwork feats, but not as much of an edge as he would if his teammates actually took the feat.
I think the argument has become circular in which no correct answer can be achieved. I keep going over it and finding myself coming full circle. It works like X, it works like Y, it works like Z then back to X again.
A benefit, yes. English definition. The fighter, as well as the entire team, and possibly the village you are defending, all benefit from someone hitting that goblin.However, it is not the Benefit from the feat. So if Solo Tactics gets reworded to say "whether the inquisitor receives a Benefit from her teamwork feats..." then it would specifically apply to the "Benefit" section of the feat, which is the ability to cause the monster to provoke, not the ability to take an AoO against a monster which has provoked.
Someone else can benefit (English definition) from the Inquisitors teamwork feats. That +2 to his attacks benefits the team because he's more likely to hit, and more likely to drop an enemy. However, no one else would gain the "Benefit:" abilities and bonuses from the feats unless they have taken them.
I think I see what you mean, but Solo Tactics is more specific than the feat. ST grants you a limited subset of the feats Benefit (the Bonus only) whereas a teammate actually having the feat grants you the entire Benefit.
So an Inq with Solo Tactics gain a little bit of an edge from his Teamwork feats, but not as much of an edge as he would if his teammates actually took the feat.
Unless I'm mistaken, you're point is that the Inquisitor should only get those things that are specifically listed as bonuses under the feat description, correct? I personally don't take the comment that inquisitors get bonuses in the ST description to be that literal, but I can see where you're coming from. My only problem with that train of thought is feats like Lookout and Swap Places are useless in regards to ST.
And if we're going to use the definition of the word bonus to mean anything extra, then I don't see why an inquisitor with ST wouldn't get the AoO provoked by the monster after it's crit, since AoOs are a bonus attack after all. Just because you have the option not to use such a bonus doesn't take away from the fact that it is, in the end,...
This how I see it too. Not enough hard rules as written to prove it one way or the other I'm finding though.
Unless I'm mistaken, you're point is that the Inquisitor should only get those things that are specifically listed as bonuses under the feat description, correct?
That depends on how you are using the word "should." As written, should the Inq get the non-numeric benefits? Nope. As I Would Have It If I Were King, should the Inq get the full Benefits? Yep.
And if we're going to use the definition of the word bonus to mean anything extra, then I don't see why an inquisitor with ST wouldn't get the AoO provoked by the monster after it's crit
The monster wouldn't provoke because the fighter does not get 'anything extra' from Outflank, including the ability to cause the monster to provoke when he crits it.
In order for your crit to cause a monster to provoke, you need the Benefit of Outflank. The fighter never gets the benefit/bonus/'anything extra' from Outflank, so the fighter cannot cause the monster to provoke when he crits.
since AoOs are a bonus attack after all.
Attacks of Opportunity are free attacks that take advantage of a lapse in defense. Anyone can make an AoO when a target they threaten provokes.
In order to work like you describe, Outflank would have to be reworded to say "you can make an AoO when your teammate crits." THEN the AoO would be a Benefit of the feat, and would apply to the Inquisitor via Solo Tactics (if Solo Tactics was reworded).
"If the fighter crits, you must acquit!"
Unless I'm mistaken, you're point is that the Inquisitor should only get those things that are specifically listed as bonuses under the feat description, correct?That depends on how you are using the word "should." As written, should the Inq get the non-numeric benefits? Nope. As I Would Have It If I Were King, should the Inq get the full Benefits? Yep.
And if we're going to use the definition of the word bonus to mean anything extra, then I don't see why an inquisitor with ST wouldn't get the AoO provoked by the monster after it's critThe monster wouldn't provoke because the fighter does not get 'anything extra' from Outflank, including the ability to cause the monster to provoke when he crits it.
In order for your crit to cause a monster to provoke, you need the Benefit of Outflank. The fighter never gets the benefit/bonus/'anything extra' from Outflank, so the fighter cannot cause the monster to provoke when he crits.
since AoOs are a bonus attack after all.Attacks of Opportunity are free attacks that take advantage of a lapse in defense. Anyone can make an AoO when a target they threaten provokes.
In order to work like you describe, Outflank would have to be reworded to say "you can make an AoO when your teammate crits." THEN the AoO would be a Benefit of the feat, and would apply to the Inquisitor via Solo Tactics.
"If the fighter crits, you must acquit!"
The problem here is we have circular argument. Assuming the bonus even applies here.
One Argument is the critical is the condition not the benefit. The critical triggers the opponent to provoke in way that only a person with Out Flank feat can take advantage of. If it were just provoking a normal attack of opportunity then anyone threatening could make a free attack. It says right in Solo tactic your ally needs to meet positioning and action. That's the flanking an critical to be scored. This just as valid of argument. I'd even think it seems to have just little more weight to it but not much.
Now shift the point of view for the second argument. Provoking is the Benefit. I'd like it the see it way personally, it increases the DRP of the Inquisitor when he scores a critical. So for that one action I'd do more damage, that's good especially if I have fighter who does a lot of damage that AoO.
So I can definitely see your point of view and I can convince myself that it works that way too presenting that circular argument. It's just so far all the arguments here haven't convinced my DM or the other players that Out Flank works that way. Should be interesting next game bringing up the bonus bit. I think that will be ruled as taking the rules too literally.
Either way, would really like to see the official word on this.
As would I.
I think there may be some game balance issues if the Inquisitor were to cause the creature to provoke AoO's from flanking allies. Take the situation of 2 rogues behind an ogre (any L sized creature), opposite our Inquisitor. Inq has Outflank and Solo Tactics, but neither rogue has Outflank. If the creature provokes from the flanking allies when the Inq scores a crit, then that means both rogues can get the AoO (with sneak attack damage), as they are both flanking, both allies of the Inquisitor, and Solo Tactics gives "all of the inquisitor’s allies" the Inq's Teamwork feats.
Bump that from a Large critter to a huge or bigger something, and the Inq could be flanking with 3+ allies, all of whom could take the AoO if he crits. That is, to say the least, very powerful stuff.
And contrary to what has been suggested about me trying to "get what I want" out of the interpretation of this combination: I don't have a dog in this fight. I do play an inquisitor, but I can count on one finger the number of times he's scored a crit in 8 levels of play. And if he's in melee range long enough to make even a single attack, then he's pretty much toast. Though if the ruling on Solo Tactics comes in as truly only applying numerical bonuses, then I guess I'll just have to consider Teamwork feats and Solo Tactics as all but useless.
|
|
Either way, would really like to see the official word on this.As would I.
I think there may be some game balance issues if the Inquisitor were to cause the creature to provoke AoO's from flanking allies. Take the situation of 2 rogues behind an ogre (any L sized creature), opposite our Inquisitor. Inq has Outflank and Solo Tactics, but neither rogue has Outflank. If the creature provokes from the flanking allies when the Inq scores a crit, then that means both rogues can get the AoO (with sneak attack damage), as they are both flanking, both allies of the Inquisitor, and Solo Tactics gives "all of the inquisitor’s allies" the Inq's Teamwork feats.
Bump that from a Large critter to a huge or bigger something, and the Inq could be flanking with 3+ allies, all of whom could take the AoO if he crits. That is, to say the least, very powerful stuff.
Or, with it going the other direction, the allies could provoke for an inquisitor with combat reflexes and a two-hander. Doesn't take much to get a +6 dex belt and end up with ~3-4 extra AoOs.
Or, with it going the other direction, the allies could provoke for an inquisitor with combat reflexes and a two-hander. Doesn't take much to get a +6 dex belt and end up with ~3-4 extra AoOs.Either way, would really like to see the official word on this.As would I.
I think there may be some game balance issues if the Inquisitor were to cause the creature to provoke AoO's from flanking allies. Take the situation of 2 rogues behind an ogre (any L sized creature), opposite our Inquisitor. Inq has Outflank and Solo Tactics, but neither rogue has Outflank. If the creature provokes from the flanking allies when the Inq scores a crit, then that means both rogues can get the AoO (with sneak attack damage), as they are both flanking, both allies of the Inquisitor, and Solo Tactics gives "all of the inquisitor’s allies" the Inq's Teamwork feats.
Bump that from a Large critter to a huge or bigger something, and the Inq could be flanking with 3+ allies, all of whom could take the AoO if he crits. That is, to say the least, very powerful stuff.
With the Inquisitor getting the AoO if you actually did get 3-4 AoO that would mean 3-4 Criticals were landed and I don't think the AoOs really matter that point.
|
|
With the Inquisitor getting the AoO if you actually did get 3-4 AoO that would mean 3-4 Criticals were landed and I don't think the AoOs really matter that point.Or, with it going the other direction, the allies could provoke for an inquisitor with combat reflexes and a two-hander. Doesn't take much to get a +6 dex belt and end up with ~3-4 extra AoOs.Either way, would really like to see the official word on this.As would I.
I think there may be some game balance issues if the Inquisitor were to cause the creature to provoke AoO's from flanking allies. Take the situation of 2 rogues behind an ogre (any L sized creature), opposite our Inquisitor. Inq has Outflank and Solo Tactics, but neither rogue has Outflank. If the creature provokes from the flanking allies when the Inq scores a crit, then that means both rogues can get the AoO (with sneak attack damage), as they are both flanking, both allies of the Inquisitor, and Solo Tactics gives "all of the inquisitor’s allies" the Inq's Teamwork feats.
Bump that from a Large critter to a huge or bigger something, and the Inq could be flanking with 3+ allies, all of whom could take the AoO if he crits. That is, to say the least, very powerful stuff.
True enough, though some characters (like rogues) don't get much out of a critical... And really it only takes one character to trigger a lot of these with some luck and a high crit weapon.