Well since the inquisitor is the one getting the AoO, the fighter isn't getting any extra/benefit/bonus in this situation.
He's getting the Benefit described by the Outflank feat.
Benefit: ... whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
You're granting that ability to the fighter.
He's getting the Benefit described by the Outflank feat.
Benefit: ... whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
You're granting that ability to the fighter.
Not so. In this case the benefit provided by Outflank itself would be the inquisitor causing his opponent to provoke. The AoO, though still a benefit, is not one that is directly generated by the feat itself, and as such would not be denied by solo tactics.
Well since the inquisitor is the one getting the AoO, the fighter isn't getting any extra/benefit/bonus in this situation.He's getting the Benefit described by the Outflank feat.
Benefit: ... whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
You're granting that ability to the fighter.
That's one way of reading it. I can't really argue against it but the other way of reading it just as valid. Just depends on your point of view.
The way I look at is if I pick up the dice to make an attack that bonus to me. If I don't and the other guy does then that's not a bonus to me.
So if I'm the inquisitor and my ally scores a critical and I get to take the AoO that is bonus to me the ally gets nothing other than the critical they just scored. I score the critical my ally again gets nothing. This definition seem to fit solo tactics better by not treating the provoking of AoO as bonus but the actual AoO as bonus.
Now reverse view just sees the bonus differently. They don't see the free attack from the attack of opportunity as bonus even though normally critical hits don't provoke. They see that forcing a creature to provoke on critical hit as the bonus. The ally getting the AoO though is thinking they are getting to make a free attack and the person scoring the critical is thinking they are gaining greater DRP for their action. So with this point view both are benefiting.
Still in the end it's just point of view. I'm now convinced we need an official answer here.
|
That's one way of reading it. I can't really argue against it but the other way of reading it just as valid. Just depends on your point of view.The way I look at is if I pick up the dice to make an attack that bonus to me. If I don't and the other guy does then that's not a bonus to me.
So if I'm the inquisitor and my ally scores a critical and I get to take the AoO that is bonus to me the ally gets nothing other than the critical they just scored. I score the critical my ally again gets nothing. This definition seem to fit solo tactics better by not treating the provoking of AoO as bonus but the actual AoO as bonus.
This. Very much this. Especially the last paragraph.
Giving someone else an attack is not a bonus to you, it's a bonus to them. By the normal definition, not the game one. Inversely, getting a free attack is a bonus to you, but granting one is not a bonus to them. Both get to feel the resulting benefit, but only one of them pulled the trigger, so to speak.To get more into that analogy: If you have two gun-wielding characters with different guns that have incompatible ammunition and one of them has an extra clip that works for the other, that's a bonus for the one who ends up with more ammo, not the one who gave it to them.
Not so. In this case the benefit provided by Outflank itself would be the inquisitor causing his opponent to provoke. The AoO, though still a benefit, is not one that is directly generated by the feat itself, and as such would not be denied by solo tactics.He's getting the Benefit described by the Outflank feat.
Benefit: ... whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
You're granting that ability to the fighter.
But that argument fails as in, if the feat wasn't in play, nothing would be occurring when the critical happens. The benefit/bonus/whatever you want to call it is in fact occurring because of the feat.
Not trying to be difficult, as I believe we are seeing things the same, just trying to point out failure in logic (trying to be objective!).
That's one way of reading it. I can't really argue against it but the other way of reading it just as valid. Just depends on your point of view.
.
The way I look at is if I pick up the dice to make an attack that bonus to me. If I don't and the other guy does then that's not a bonus to me.
But that is a personal perspective, the game doesn't make that distinction. A feat gives a benefit, which in a general way is a bonus. Some feats give a bonus to someone else (Swift Aid for example), some feats give the bonus to those who take them (Dodge off the top of my head). In an objective view, a bonus is a bonus, no matter who gets it. Who gets the bonus is detailed when you take the ability so you know ahead of time what you are getting into.
So if I'm the inquisitor and my ally scores a critical and I get to take the AoO that is bonus to me the ally gets nothing other than the critical they just scored. I score the critical my ally again gets nothing. This definition seem to fit solo tactics better by not treating the provoking of AoO as bonus but the actual AoO as bonus.
That isn't a definition that is a interpretation which requires some wiggling to get to, given that there are certain things that are stated explicitly (terms like you, specific wording, and rules that state generalizations are made but can be broken by specific instances when so called out). Whether or not it "fits" any one person's personal preference or take on intent, is wholly irrelevant as we cannot know intent and are left with just the words on the page. RAW often seems at odds with someones take on intent but that doesn't change things for RAW, it just seems out of place or odd.
Now reverse view just sees the bonus differently. They don't see the free attack from the attack of opportunity as bonus even though normally critical hits don't provoke. They see that forcing a creature to provoke on critical hit as the bonus. The ally getting the AoO though is thinking they are getting to make a free attack and the person scoring the critical is thinking they are gaining greater DRP for their action. So with this point view both are benefiting.Still in the end it's just point of view. I'm now convinced we need an official answer here.
No doubt. What makes it maddening is that it could be completely cleared up with the simple change of a word! Well a word and a colon...
But that argument fails as in, if the feat wasn't in play, nothing would be occurring when the critical happens. The benefit/bonus/whatever you want to call it is in fact occurring because of the feat.
Not trying to be difficult, as I believe we are seeing things the same, just trying to point out failure in logic (trying to be objective!).
The logic isn't faulty. You are right, the benefit, causing the creature the inquisitor struck to provoke an AoO, is occurring only because the the inquisitor possesses Outflank and has a valid partner. That the partner can make an AoO is not a benefit of the feat itself, it is an action that results from that benefit.
|
|
But that argument fails as in, if the feat wasn't in play, nothing would be occurring when the critical happens. The benefit/bonus/whatever you want to call it is in fact occurring because of the feat.
Not trying to be difficult, as I believe we are seeing things the same, just trying to point out failure in logic (trying to be objective!).
The logic isn't faulty. You are right, the benefit, causing the creature the inquisitor struck to provoke an AoO, is occurring only because the the inquisitor possesses Outflank and has a valid partner. That the partner can make an AoO is not a benefit of the feat itself, it is an action that results from that benefit.
Outflank does not provide any direct bonus on a character's ally due to solo tactics.
Outflank provides a character with an increased flanking bonus, and causes a character's target to provoke an attack of opportunity from the character's flanking ally when it suffers a critical hit.
Outflank does not provide the character possessing the feat an AoO.
AoOs are never a direct bonus. They are an independent action that can be taken, or ignored, at a player's discretion whenever such an action is provoked. Therefore, Outflank never provides an AoO as a direct bonus.
Therefore, as Outflank does not actually provide an inquisitor's ally with an AoO, such an attack is not negated by solo tactics.
Therefore, a flanking ally is allowed to make an attack of opportunity against an opponent dealt a critical hit by an inquisitor possessing both solo tactics and Outflank.
The attack may not be a direct bonus, but the *opportunity* to make that attack is definitely a direct bonus.
Not so. In this case the benefit provided by Outflank itself would be the inquisitor causing his opponent to provoke.
I think you misread what you were replying to.
Tyrnd said that the fighter getting the ability to cause a monster to provoke isn't a benefit because someone else gets the AoO.
I pointed out that this is wrong, because that exact ability is listed as a Benefit of Outflank.
I think you, Skylancer, and I all agree on this.
Stabby (and possibly Voska) feel that the feat's intent is that it should be interpreted backwards, that it fits the Inquisitor flavor better if it was re-written so that the Inq gets to make an AoO when his ally crits.
Cool, my first 3 pages long topic and I hardly had to post myself ^^
Anyway, I guess we all agree that official clarification is required. Let's hope we'll get some response soon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The verdict is in:
If an inquisitor uses Solo Tactics (Advanced Player's Guide, page 40) with the Outflank feat (APG, page 165), does the enemy provoke attacks of opportunity when hit with a critical hit?
Yes, but only when the inquisitors allies score a critical hit against a foe that they both flank. In this case, the enemy provokes an attack of opportunity from the inquisitor. The reverse is not true, since her allies can only gain bonuses from teamwork feats if they themselves possess them. (JMB, 11/24/10)–Jason Bulmahn (11/24/10)
That's a strange FAQ response. I would have gone with Grick's logic... because it is logical mostly. But if the game designers have this intended effect, I am happy with it...
That's a strange FAQ response. I would have gone with Grick's logic... because it is logical mostly.
The intent is now clear, even if the wording is completely backwards.
I'm surprised they FAQ'd the class instead of the feat. The feat needs to be errata'd so the listed benefit is the ability to make an AoO when a flanked creature is critically hit, rather than the ability to cause a creature to provoke when you crit it. That would make the FAQ response make sense.
But if the game designers have this intended effect, I am happy with it...
This is the important part =)
That's a strange FAQ response. I would have gone with Grick's logic... because it is logical mostly.
Not really, the wording of this feat assumes that your flanking partner will also have the same teamwork feat. The actual benefit is +4 to attacks when flanking and if your partner crits you get an AoO. Now, in the case of the Inquisitor, your partner doesn't actually have this feat so he won't gain any of the benefits, however for the purposes of determining YOUR benefits you treat that partner as if he did have the feat. So you will get +4 to hit while flanking and YOU will get a free AoO if HE gets a critical hit. But he will not get the benefit of an AoO if you crit because he doesn't have the feat. Nor will he get the +4 to attack when flanking.
But if the game designers have this intended effect, I am happy with it...
Quite true. I just saw this thread and was about to post. Then I saw the post above, where it had already been answered by FAQ and I was delighted to see that apparently my interpretation agreed with that of the designers.