| 24 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
So how exactly does Outflank work with Solo Tactics?
Solo Tactics: At 3rd level, all of the inquisitor’s allies are treated as if they possessed the same teamwork feats as the inquisitor for the purpose of determining whether the inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats. Her allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they actually possess the feats themselves. The allies’ positioning and actions must still meet the prerequisites listed in the teamwork feat for the inquisitor to receive the listed bonus.
Let's say my Inquisitor with Outflank and Solo Tactics is flanking an enemy with the party's Fighter, who doesn NOT have the Outflank feat. I get the +4 to attacks instead of +2, but the fighter only gets the usual +2 flanking bonus. That much is clear. But how about the AoO?
I can think of 4 possible rulings:
a) Whenever I crit, the fighter gets an AoO but I don't get one if he crits. In this case, the ability to grant an AoO would be the Outflank bonus.
b) Whenever the fighter crits, I get an AoO but he doesn't get one if I crit. The AoO on a critcally hit opponent would be the Outflank bonus.
c) If either one of us crits, the other one gets an AoO. The ability to grant an AoO and the free AoO on a critically hit opponent are both part of the Outflank bonus.
d) Neither one of us gets the AoO. The AoO triggered by the critical hit desn't work with Solo Tactics at all.
I'm personally leaning towards ruling a) but any insight would be appreciated.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So how exactly does Outflank work with Solo Tactics
When -you- score a crit, it causes the flanked creature to provoke. Your fighter buddy can then choose to take an AoO.
It's not granting an a AoO, it's causing the creature to provoke (from the flanking ally only).
I am going to agree with option A, and use it that way in my games for now, unless we get offical word on it.
Id go with option B
You have the Outflank feat and Solo Tactics, so the Fighter counts as if having the feat for all purposes. Thus you get the +4 for flanking and the AoO should he Crit.
I have this with my Inquisitor and I forgot completely about the AoO. Must remember it...
Your ally is considered to have the feat "for the purpose of determining whether the inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats." To me, this means that the inquisitor gets the AoO if the ally scores a crit--in essence, the feat trains the character to better take advantage of the creature's situation. Solo Tactics does not provide your ally with any benefit unless they actually have the feat. Therefore, I'd have to conclude that the allies do not get the AoO when the Inquisitor scores a crit.
I've hit the FAQ request. Hopefully we'll get an official ruling.
I'd agree with option A. The feat gives you the ability to grant AoO's to your teammates with the feat, so that's the ability that Solo Tactics grants, even if your allies don't have the feat.
I don't think Option A works. If you critical then the fighter would need to have Out Flank to actually take the AoO. The Inquisitor's Solo tactics doesn't give the fighter Out Flank it just makes him count as if he did for you use of Out Flank.
It's the Out Flank feat that give you the AoO when another person with the same feat is flanking and criticals. Since your Solo Tactics makes make so the fighter counts as having it then when the fighter criticals you can use you Out Flank feat to make an AoO. So that would be Option B.
The fighter really doesn't have Out Flank so Out Flank should give them no benefit but for the Inquisitor they treat the fighter as having Out Flank so they can use it's benefits. The AoO is a benefit provided by the feat as is the +4 when flanking. So only when the fighter Criticals does the Inquisitor get to take AoO.
I don't think Option A works. If you critical then the fighter would need to have Out Flank to actually take the AoO. The Inquisitor's Solo tactics doesn't give the fighter Out Flank it just makes him count as if he did for you use of Out Flank.
It's the Out Flank feat that give you the AoO when another person with the same feat is flanking and criticals. Since your Solo Tactics makes make so the fighter counts as having it then when the fighter criticals you can use you Out Flank feat to make an AoO. So that would be Option B.
The fighter really doesn't have Out Flank so Out Flank should give them no benefit but for the Inquisitor they treat the fighter as having Out Flank so they can use it's benefits. The AoO is a benefit provided by the feat as is the +4 when flanking. So only when the fighter Criticals does the Inquisitor get to take AoO.
The thing is, outflank says that you grant your ally the AoO, not that when your ally crits you get one. I think your way of interpretting it is more in line with solo tactics, but less in line with what it actually says. It says you cause the opponent to provoke from your ally, not that your ally causes the enemy to provoke from you.
The thing is, outflank says that you grant your ally the AoO, not that when your ally crits you get one. I think your way of interpretting it is more in line with solo tactics, but less in line with what it actually says. It says you cause the opponent to provoke from your ally, not that your ally causes the enemy to provoke from you.
True, but consider that for teamwork feats to work normally, both allies have to have the feat. In that case, when either crits, the other gets the AoO. For Solo Tactics, your ally counts as having the feat for purposes of determining if you get a benefit--it doesn't grant your ally any benefit.
Both options are validly logical conclusions of the text, as presented. Hopefully we will get an official ruling.
The thing is, outflank says that you grant your ally the AoO, not that when your ally crits you get one. I think your way of interpretting it is more in line with solo tactics, but less in line with what it actually says. It says you cause the opponent to provoke from your ally, not that your ally causes the enemy to provoke from you.I don't think Option A works. If you critical then the fighter would need to have Out Flank to actually take the AoO. The Inquisitor's Solo tactics doesn't give the fighter Out Flank it just makes him count as if he did for you use of Out Flank.
It's the Out Flank feat that give you the AoO when another person with the same feat is flanking and criticals. Since your Solo Tactics makes make so the fighter counts as having it then when the fighter criticals you can use you Out Flank feat to make an AoO. So that would be Option B.
The fighter really doesn't have Out Flank so Out Flank should give them no benefit but for the Inquisitor they treat the fighter as having Out Flank so they can use it's benefits. The AoO is a benefit provided by the feat as is the +4 when flanking. So only when the fighter Criticals does the Inquisitor get to take AoO.
I get what you are saying but the way I look at is Solo Tactic applies the feat to the fighter but the benefit only affects you. So if you critical then your ally who is flanking does get the AoO if the actually have the feat Out Flank. If they only have due to Solo Tactics they don't get the AoO. On the flip side if your ally who you are flanking with does the critical you get the AoO.
I think you it depends on if you consider providing the AoO to your ally as the bonus or getting the AoO for yourself. I think I have switched to B.
Solo Tactics determines that the Inquisitor gets the bonus from the feat. It does not grant the ally the feat in any way.
The only thing Solo Tactics does is answer the question "Does the Inquisitor gain the bonus from this teamwork feat?"
The bonus from Outflank is an extra +2 and crits causing the flanked creature to provoke. Those are the benefits of the feat. The fighter gets none of those. He does not get an extra +2, he does not get to cause flanked creatures to provoke.
Whenever you (The Inquisitor, with Outflank) score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
It does not grant your ally anything. The ally can make an attack against a creature that provokes like normal. If the ally has used all of his AoOs that round, Outflank does not give them another one.
If this comes off as hostile or anything, it's not intended, I'm just trying to be very clear. I read the feat in one specific way, that doesn't mean anyone else is wrong. I'm clicking the FAQ button since there are so many people reading it differently. (Which usually means I'm wrong!)
Here's the Solo Tactics write up.
"Solo Tactics (Ex): At 3rd level, all of the inquisitor’s allies
are treated as if they possessed the same teamwork feats as
the inquisitor for the purpose of determining whether the
inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats. Her
allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they
actually possess the feats themselves. The allies’ positioning
and actions must still meet the prerequisites listed in the
teamwork feat for the inquisitor to receive the listed bonus."
Seems clear to me. The key to understanding this is the following line "Her allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they actually possess the feats themselves". So the fighter can not receive any bonus even if the Inquisitor scores a critical so no attack of opportunity. If the fighter scores a critical the Inquisitor treats them as though they had the feat there by provoking an attack of opportunity for the Inquisitor.
It depends on how you define a bonus. Is it a) a numerical value added to your die-roll for an action, or b) Fringe benefits in general i.e. the AoO.
I can't say which option is right, whether it's to the OP or this...
|
Since the idea of Solo Tactics is that the inquisitor would be the one looking awesome and not the ally*, I'm going to say that the Inquisitor gets an AoO if their ally crits, but not the other way around. This way only the inquisitor gets to look cool for having the ability.
* My evidence: The cavalier also gets teamwork feats, but grants them to his teammates instead of trying to do it all himself. So we have a selfish and a selfless class in this respect.
EDIT - In other words, Option B.
It depends on how you define a bonus. Is it a) a numerical value added to your die-roll for an action, or b) Fringe benefits in general i.e. the AoO.
I can't say which option is right, whether it's to the OP or this...
I define it by what the books say. The Benfit part of the feat. So my mistake may have been calling it a bonus. Swap out bonus for benefit.
Ok, looks like there is no easy answer. Not yet, anyway.
But it's good to know that I'm not the only one who is unsure how this works. :D
Let's hope for some official word on the matter.
Your ally is considered to have the feat "for the purpose of determining whether the inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats." To me, this means that the inquisitor gets the AoO if the ally scores a crit--in essence, the feat trains the character to better take advantage of the creature's situation. Solo Tactics does not provide your ally with any benefit unless they actually have the feat. Therefore, I'd have to conclude that the allies do not get the AoO when the Inquisitor scores a crit.
I've hit the FAQ request. Hopefully we'll get an official ruling.
I agree 100% with this.
I am still sticking with Option B.
When your ally crits, it causes you to get an AoO.
Reread the feat just now. MAkes perfect sense to me.
I am still sticking with Option A.
Having the feat doesn't ever grant YOU an AoO. If YOU have the feat, the enemy provokes an AoO from YOUR ALLY. The only question, then, is whether your ally also has the feat -- and Solo Tactics answers "yes" to that.
I'm looking at this the way a programmer would; each instance of the feat as written triggers on the owner's crit to grant an ally an AoO. Since the ally doesn't actually have the feat, the ally doesn't grant the inquisitor an AoO.
I am still sticking with Option A.
Having the feat doesn't ever grant YOU an AoO. If YOU have the feat, the enemy provokes an AoO from YOUR ALLY. The only question, then, is whether your ally also has the feat -- and Solo Tactics answers "yes" to that.
I'm looking at this the way a programmer would; each instance of the feat as written triggers on the owner's crit to grant an ally an AoO. Since the ally doesn't actually have the feat, the ally doesn't grant the inquisitor an AoO.
Thats how I thought about it at first, but then I switched after rethinking solo tactics.
It says treat your ally as if he has the feat, but he does not get any bennefit. Therefore, when he crits, you are treating him as having the feat and he grants you the AoO. He gets no bennefit from this though, and I consider the AoO the bennefit, not granting the AoO.
I think this might clear it up. The out flank provides an Attack of Opportunity when the right Conditions are met:
The Conditions are you both must have the feat, you both must be flanking, one of you must score a critical allowing the other take an attack of opportunity.
For the Inquisitor example where an they are flanking with a fighter and the Inquisitor has Solo Tactics with outflank where the flanking fighter has scored a critical, the conditions are met and the Inquisitor gets an Attack of Opportunity. The Inquisitor has the feat, he treats the fighter as having the feat, he is flanking with is his Allie, and his Allie has scored a critical so the attack of opportunity is triggered.
Reverse this where the Inquisitor scores a critical and the fighter meet only 2 of the 3 conditions. He is flanking, the Inquisitor scored a critical but he is missing the feat. So conditions are not met and the fighter does not get an attack of opportunity.
Neither of the feats say "benefit" anywhere in them.
Does your teammate "benefit" from the creature provoking? Yes, of course. He also benefits from the Inquisitor being more likely to hit the creature, so does that mean the +4 to hit does not apply because it benefits the party? If the "bonus" from Solo Tactics really means "benefit the party", then it never has any effect. That's why it says "bonus" - it means the mechanical advantages of the feat.
Outflank has 2 effects: +4 to hit, and crits causing a creature to provoke. Those are the bonuses.
Solo Tactics says the Inquisitor gets those bonuses if he's flanking with a teammate.
The fighter does not get those bonuses, because he does not have the Outflank feat. He does not get +4 to hit, and his crits do not cause it to provoke.
Neither of the feats "grant" an AoO to anyone.
If you use Greater Bull Rush you are not "granting" an AoO to anyone, you are causing the creature to provoke. You make the goblin do something, and the people threatening it have the option of taking advantage of that.
Outflank is just like that. You hit the goblin so hard he wobbles around and leaves his opposite side vulnerable. He provokes from the flanker. The flanking ally then has the option of taking an AoO if he still has one, just like if you G.BullRushed him or if it stood up or cast a spell. Causing that goblin to wobble or whatever is a direct result of having the Outflank feat, without that bonus, it's just a regular crit. This is why the fighter's crits are normal, because he does not have the feat.
Outflank does not grant you the ability to take an AoO when a flanker crits. It grants you the ability to cause the creature to provoke when you crit. This is exactly as written: "whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally" you have the ability to force the creature to do something.
I agree 100% with this.Your ally is considered to have the feat "for the purpose of determining whether the inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats." To me, this means that the inquisitor gets the AoO if the ally scores a crit--in essence, the feat trains the character to better take advantage of the creature's situation. Solo Tactics does not provide your ally with any benefit unless they actually have the feat. Therefore, I'd have to conclude that the allies do not get the AoO when the Inquisitor scores a crit.
I've hit the FAQ request. Hopefully we'll get an official ruling.
Me too.
Neither of the feats say "benefit" anywhere in them.
Actually all feats are list the same way with the name of the feat, the description of the feat and the Benefit of the feat.
For example:
Acrobatic
You are skilled at leaping, jumping, and flying.
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Acrobatics and Fly skill checks. If you have 10 or more ranks in one of these skills, the bonus increases to +4 for that skill.
Neither of the feats say "benefit" anywhere in them.
Just a technical thing but first, one is a feat the other is a class ability. Second, feats have always been listed as a "Benefit:", I agree with your end result however even if your basis might be flawed.
Outflank (Combat, Teamwork)
You look for every edge when f lanking an enemy.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +4.
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.
You have the feat, you get the +4 to hit. You crit on a critter your crit allows the ally to take an AoO.
Your ally who has the "fake" feat will not get +4 to hit nor will they cause you to get an AoO as they don't actually gain the "Benefit:" of the feat.
Here is another question:
What causes the AoO? The creature getting critted, or the actual Crit attack?
As I read it, the crit is what gives the other Flanker the AoO, because while flanking with your buddy, you take advantage when the creature getting flanked is receiving a devastating attack. The crit on the creature, doesnt spontaneously let him provoke an AoO. With your superior flanking ability, you get an AoO. This way of seeing it makes sense for the feat, as its a flanking feat.
The other way of reading this, is that the creature now provokes an AoO when he is critted, under flanked conditions. But this makes little sense, as why isnt this creature provoking for everyone, if its the one causing the AoO?
I stick with option B.
To summarize: Outflank gives flanking a +4 total, and if your outflanker friend crits, you get an AoO.
Solo tactics applied: when you flank a creature, your flank bonus becomes +4, and if your ally scores a crit, you get an AoO.
Neither of the feats say "benefit" anywhere in them.
Actually all feats are list the same way with the name of the feat, the description of the feat and the Benefit of the feat.
For example:
Acrobatic
You are skilled at leaping, jumping, and flying.
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Acrobatics and Fly skill checks. If you have 10 or more ranks in one of these skills, the bonus increases to +4 for that skill.
Well then, you've just proven his point.
The fighter gains no benefits of the feat, hence does not gain the ability to cause the opponent to provoke with a crit.
On the other side, the inquisitor pretends he has the feat, ergo, when he crits he makes the enemy provoke an AoO, as said in the feat.
Think about the order of operations, and that from the fighter's point of view, he doesn't have the feat. From the inquisitor's point of view, the fighter does have the feat. Now, the fighter fights like normal, when he crits, nothing special happens, because he doesn't have the feat. The quiz might think "thats weird I thought he had that feat" But when the quiz crits he's playing liking he's outflanking that guy with his feat, "Yeah, we're outflanking, Im gonna crit him good" so when he crits the effect of the feat does happen, which is that when he crits the OPPONENT PROVOKES an AoO, an AoO is NOT GRANTED by the feat. He hits him in such a way as to cause him to be vulnerable. This doesn't happen when the fighter does it, because he doesn't know how to do it (doesn't have the feat) the quiz is just used to working with people who suck and fights like they don't.
I stick with option B.
To summarize: Outflank gives flanking a +4 total, and if your outflanker friend crits, you get an AoO.
Solo tactics applied: when you flank a creature, your flank bonus becomes +4, and if your ally scores a crit, you get an AoO.
But your summary is backwards. The feat doesn't say anything about gaining something when your ally does something, it talks about how YOU the FEAT HOLDER grant something to your allies when YOU crit.
Well then, you've just proven his point.
The fighter gains no benefits of the feat, hence does not gain the ability to cause the opponent to provoke with a crit.
On the other side, the inquisitor pretends he has the feat, ergo, when he crits he makes the enemy provoke an AoO, as said in the feat.
Think about the order of operations, and that from the fighter's point of view, he doesn't have the feat. From the inquisitor's point of view, the fighter does have the feat. Now, the fighter fights like normal, when he crits, nothing special happens, because he doesn't have the feat. The quiz might think "thats weird I thought he had that feat" But when the quiz crits he's playing liking he's outflanking that guy with his feat, "Yeah, we're outflanking, Im gonna crit him good" so when he crits the effect of the feat does happen, which is that when he crits the OPPONENT PROVOKES an AoO, an AoO is NOT GRANTED by the feat. He hits him in such a way as to cause him to be vulnerable. This doesn't happen when the fighter does it, because he doesn't know how to do it (doesn't have the feat) the quiz is just used to working with people who suck and fights like they don't.
I think you missed the whole point.
This is really simple. Out flank has 3 condition that need to be in place for it to work. First you flanking, second one ally needs to critical, and third both allies need the Out Flank feat. So if one scores a critical the other provokes an attack of opportunity if they meet those 3 conditions.
Now the Inquisitor makes things a little confusing because they can treat any on as have the same teamwork feat they have even though the ally doesn't.
The situation doesn't change. From the Inquisitors position all the conditions are met. A critical is scored by the ally, he is flanking with an ally and the ally is treated a having the feat. Get an attack of opportunity. Next round the Inquisitor hits with critical, he is still flanking with ally, and the ally does not have the Out Flank Feat. 3 conditions are not met so no attack of opportunity.
I think the biggest confusion is people are taking the feat apart and saying the AoO is not part of the feat since attack of opportunities are defined as normal action occur when conditions occur. So anyone can take a AoO when provoked as long as the condition is met. So while this seems right to me the problem is you can't meet this condition with out the teamwork feat and solo tactics only works for the Inquisitor.
Out flank has 3 condition that need to be in place for it to work.
No it doesn't. You need to be flanking, and your ally needs to share the teamwork feat. Two conditions.
The first condition is met by being in the flanking position.
The second condition is met, ONLY for the Inq, by Solo Tactics. This means, for the Inq, the conditions are met. So the Inq gains the bonuses of Outflank.
For the Fighter, he does not meet the conditions, because he does not have Outflank. So he does not get the bonuses.
I think everyone has agreed on this so far. Yes?
So the Inq gets +4 to hit, Fighter only gets +2.
The only question remaining is this: Is the "Bonus" from the second part of Outflank
A) the ability to cause a monster to provoke when you crit it, or
B) the ability to take an AoO when a flanker crits.
Lets look at the feat:
"In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally."
It says when YOU crit, the MONSTER provokes. It does not say anything about your ally landing a crit, it does not say anything about granting anything to anyone. It says when YOU, the holder of the feat, land a crit, the MONSTER that you hit provokes an attack.
So if one scores a critical the other provokes an attack of opportunity if they meet those 3 conditions.
Provoke means you drop your guard and someone else can hit you. In our examples, neither the Inq nor the Fighter are provoking. The only thing that provokes is the goblin.
Provoke: let your guard down or take a reckless action, like casting a spell, picking up a weapon, standing up from prone.
Make an AoO: take advantage of the lapse in defense to attack for free.
I think the biggest confusion is people are taking the feat apart and saying the AoO is not part of the feat since attack of opportunities are defined as normal action occur when conditions occur.
YES!
So anyone can take a AoO when provoked as long as the condition is met.
Even more yes! The "condition" is the creature must provoke, and you must not have taken all your AoOs for the round. Since the Inq has the benefits of Outflank, his crit causes the goblin to provoke. Since the Fighter has not used all his AoOs yet, he can take an AoO against the goblin.
It doesn't matter what causes the monster to provoke, it could be casting a spell, or someone could have Greater Bull Rushed it, or someone could use a whacky class ability to cause it to provoke when they crit. Either way, the monster has provoked, it dropped it's guard, so the Fighter can take a swing at it. That's what provoking IS.
Even more yes! The "condition" is the creature must provoke, and you must not have taken all your AoOs for the round. Since the Inq has the benefits of Outflank, his crit causes the goblin to provoke. Since the Fighter has not used all his AoOs yet, he can take an AoO against the goblin.
It doesn't matter what causes the monster to provoke, it could be casting a spell, or someone could have Greater Bull Rushed it, or someone could use a whacky class ability to cause it to provoke when they crit. Either way, the monster has provoked, it dropped it's guard, so the Fighter can take a swing at it. That's what provoking IS.
You are right when it comes to feats like Greater Trip. When a trip occurs anyone one who threatens and an has AoO available can take an AoO.
With Out Flank though it specifically states only the flanking ally can take the Attack of Opportunity. So unlike other feats where the creature just provokes an attack of opportunity with Out Flank the creature only provokes an AoO for an ally with the feat who happens to be flanking with a person who scored a critical. No others get AoO. Now since the fighter technically doesn't have the feat they are not part of that condition and get no attack of opportunity. But the Inquisitor can treat the ally as having the feat so when the ally scores a critical the enemy provokes an attack of Opportunity for the Inquisitor to take advantage of and only the Inquisitor can can receive that benefit.
|
|
Even more yes! The "condition" is the creature must provoke, and you must not have taken all your AoOs for the round. Since the Inq has the benefits of Outflank, his crit causes the goblin to provoke. Since the Fighter has not used all his AoOs yet, he can take an AoO against the goblin.
It doesn't matter what causes the monster to provoke, it could be casting a spell, or someone could have Greater Bull Rushed it, or someone could use a whacky class ability to cause it to provoke when they crit. Either way, the monster has provoked, it dropped it's guard, so the Fighter can take a swing at it. That's what provoking IS.
You are right when it comes to feats like Greater Trip. When a trip occurs anyone one who threatens and an has AoO available can take an AoO.
With Out Flank though it specifically states only the flanking ally can take the Attack of Opportunity. So unlike other feats where the creature just provokes an attack of opportunity with Out Flank the creature only provokes an AoO for an ally with the feat who happens to be flanking with a person who scored a critical. No others get AoO. Now since the fighter technically doesn't have the feat they are not part of that condition and get no attack of opportunity. But the Inquisitor can treat the ally as having the feat so when the ally scores a critical the enemy provokes an attack of Opportunity for the Inquisitor to take advantage of and only the Inquisitor can can receive that benefit.
+1
Though I'm biased since I like the angle of "Inquisitor gets to look cool" for interpreting how solo tactics works.
But the Inquisitor can treat the ally as having the feat so when the ally scores a critical the enemy provokes an attack of Opportunity for the Inquisitor to take advantage of and only the Inquisitor can can receive that benefit.
The board just ate my post. The gist of it was that you're granting the fighter part of the bonus from Outflank based on the reasoning that the Inquisitor benefits from it.
Solo Tactics specifically says the ally does not gain any bonuses.
This is the bonus from Outflank:
"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."
The fighter does not get those bonuses. See where it talks about your crits causing the creature to provoke? That's a bonus from Outflank. The fighter does not get that. He does not get +4, he cannot cause it to provoke. Even if an Inq is standing there wanting to look cool.
If they wanted it to be backwards, they could have easily phrased it that way: "In addition, whenever your ally scores a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from you." That's how you're reading it, but that's not how it's written.
I don't think we're getting anywhere, so until we get an official ruling, enjoy the game and happy inquisiting!
I'm with Grick. It specifies the role of "you" and the role of "your ally" in the feat. Solo Tactics allows any ally to take the place of "your ally" even if they don't have the feat themselves. The benefits the inquisitor gets are still based on what the "you" in the description gets.
But the Inquisitor can treat the ally as having the feat so when the ally scores a critical the enemy provokes an attack of Opportunity for the Inquisitor to take advantage of and only the Inquisitor can can receive that benefit.The board just ate my post. The gist of it was that you're granting the fighter part of the bonus from Outflank based on the reasoning that the Inquisitor benefits from it.
Solo Tactics specifically says the ally does not gain any bonuses.
This is the bonus from Outflank:
"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."
The fighter does not get those bonuses. See where it talks about your crits causing the creature to provoke? That's a bonus from Outflank. The fighter does not get that. He does not get +4, he cannot cause it to provoke. Even if an Inq is standing there wanting to look cool.
If they wanted it to be backwards, they could have easily phrased it that way: "In addition, whenever your ally scores a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from you." That's how you're reading it, but that's not how it's written.
I don't think we're getting anywhere, so until we get an official ruling, enjoy the game and happy inquisiting!
It's a teamwork feat. The "You" part of applies to who ever scores the critical. So if the fighter scores the critical the "you" part of the feat applies to the fighter allowing the Inquisitor to take AoO. This is how it works if both have the Out Flank feat.
With Solo Tactics the following leads me to believe the Inquisitor gets the AoO when a fighter with out the feat scores a Critical.
"The allies’ positioning and actions must still meet the prerequisites listed in the teamwork feat for the inquisitor to receive the listed bonus."
By positioning and actions that would mean Flanking and Attacking where the attack happens to be a critical. That meats the perquisites listed for the bonus which is an Attack of Opportunity granted to the ally who is the Inquisitor.
|
Here's the Solo Tactics write up.
"Solo Tactics (Ex): At 3rd level, all of the inquisitor’s allies
are treated as if they possessed the same teamwork feats as
the inquisitor for the purpose of determining whether the
inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats. Her
allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they
actually possess the feats themselves. The allies’ positioning
and actions must still meet the prerequisites listed in the
teamwork feat for the inquisitor to receive the listed bonus."Seems clear to me. The key to understanding this is the following line "Her allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they actually possess the feats themselves". So the fighter can not receive any bonus even if the Inquisitor scores a critical so no attack of opportunity. If the fighter scores a critical the Inquisitor treats them as though they had the feat there by provoking an attack of opportunity for the Inquisitor.
+1. Seems crystal-clear to me as well.
With Solo Tactics the following leads me to believe the Inquisitor gets the AoO when a fighter with out the feat scores a Critical.
Maybe that would be true "IF" (it's a big if) the ability didn't specifically call out that the ally DOESN'T get the Benefit from the feat. If you look at the feat the AoO is most definitely listed under the "Benefit:" therefore the fighter critical doesn't provoke the AoO for you to take as the fighter doesn't have the feat.
"The allies’ positioning and actions must still meet the prerequisites listed in the teamwork feat for the inquisitor to receive the listed bonus."
...
By positioning and actions that would mean Flanking and Attacking where the attack happens to be a critical. That meats the perquisites listed for the bonus which is an Attack of Opportunity granted to the ally who is the Inquisitor.
You are adding words and meanings to this because you want it to happen. I get that, but the actual written rules don't support this. What that line says is "This ability grants allies feats they don't have, for these feats to work they need to be in a position where the feat is valid." Teamwork feats ALL depend on positioning in some way, what this line does is reinforce that Teamwork feats are still dependent on that principle even though it is given to every one of his allies no matter where they are in relation to the character providing the psuedo feat.
It still comes down to:
1 Inquisitor has feat
2 Inquisitor gives psuedo feat to allies
3 Allies are now considered to be valid for all of the Inquisitors own feats even though they do not get the "Benefits:" of the feat. IE When the feat goes to check and see if the ally has <Insert Teamwork Feat> listed on the character sheet the result is : Yes even though it isn't actually there.
4 Inquisitor now gains the benefit of the feat listed on their character sheet assuming the ally is in fact in a position where the feat is going to work. IE the guy flanking the monster will not trigger the feat if they are supposed to be adjacent to the Inquisitor.
All this ability does is return a false positive for Teamwork feats that the Inquisitor has assuming allies are in the correct position.
Conclusion being RAW states the additional AoO is a listed Benefit: of the feat, that means that anyone who doesn't have the feat will not provoke the AoO for a flanking ally.
For it to work the way you want it to, the benefit would have to be worded something like "when a flanking ally who has this teamwork feat scores a critical hit you are allowed an attack of opportunity against that target." That isn't what it says, it says that when someone with the feat scores a critical strike they (the person who has the feat and is getting the "benefit:") provide an AoO for someone else. The benefit is that you are giving someone else an attack. If you don't have the benefit, you cannot give someone the attack.
With Out Flank though it specifically states only the flanking ally can take the Attack of Opportunity. So unlike other feats where the creature just provokes an attack of opportunity with Out Flank the creature only provokes an AoO for an ally with the feat who happens to be flanking with a person who scored a critical. No others get AoO.
Correct and then you got lost.
Now since the fighter technically doesn't have the feat they are not part of that condition and get no attack of opportunity.
WRONG (part 1), as you are the person with the feat, whenever YOU (the Inquisitor) score a critical attack YOU provide and additional AoO against the target you are flanking. The actual benefit you are getting from this feat is someone else getting an attack.
But the Inquisitor can treat the ally as having the feat so when the ally scores a critical the enemy provokes an attack of Opportunity for the Inquisitor to take advantage of and only the Inquisitor can can receive that benefit.
WRONG (part 2), Anything past the words "Benefit:" in the feat description are NOT available to the person you are bestowing the feat to - the ability specifically states this to be the case. As that other person doesn't really have the feat, they do not get the +4 to hit nor do they give you an attack.
+1
Though I'm biased since I like the angle of "Inquisitor gets to look cool" for interpreting how solo tactics works.
I agree, but unfortunately the wording of the feat doesn't support that. This is one of those "selfless feats" where you actually give a bonus to someone else.
+1. Seems crystal-clear to me as well.
You would think, except Voska66 isn't actually following the written rule. The feat says "someone with this feat gives an AoO" where as Voska66 wants it to be "I get an AoO when someone crits because of my feat."
"A" for effort, "F" for reading comprehension.
For it to work the way you want it to, the benefit would have to be worded something like "when a flanking ally who has this teamwork feat scores a critical hit you are allowed an attack of opportunity against that target." That isn't what it says, it says that when someone with the feat scores a critical strike they (the person who has the feat and is getting the "benefit:") provide an AoO for someone else. The benefit is that you are giving someone else an attack. If you don't have the benefit, you cannot give someone the attack.
Teamwork feats were not written with Solo Tactics in mind. They were written as the rest of the book was written, directly addressing the player of the character. Teamwork feats require both/all parties involved to have the feat, making these 2 statements identical:
In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
In addition, whenever your ally scores a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
Solo Tactics is what muddles this up. The obvious intent of Solo Tactics (Her allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they actually possess the feats themselves) is that the ally does not gain anything they would not otherwise get. Giving the ally the AoO, in my interpretation, is giving them something they would not otherwise get.
Both are valid logical conclusions. In fact it could be argued that giving neither the provoked AoO is also a logical conclusion, but to try to argue that the other point of view is somehow wrong is inaccurate.
Solo Tactics (Ex): At 3rd level, all of the inquisitor’s allies
are treated as if they possessed the same teamwork feats as
the inquisitor for the purpose of determining whether the
inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats. Her
allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they
actually possess the feats themselves. The allies’ positioning
and actions must still meet the prerequisites listed in the
teamwork feat for the inquisitor to receive the listed bonus.
Teamwork Feats
Teamwork feats grant large bonuses, but they only function
under specific circumstances. In most cases, these feats
require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned
carefully on the battlefield. Teamwork feats provide no
bonus if the listed conditions are not met. Note that allies
who are paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise
unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats
Outflank (Combat, Teamwork)
You look for every edge when flanking an enemy.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Whenever you and an ally who also has this
feat are flanking the same creature A condition, 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.
Here's the Text for Solo Tactic, Teamwork Feats and OutFlank.
Solo tactics first. Notice the part about "Treats Allies as if they possessed the feat". Also take note of the "the Allies Positioning" and "actions".
Look at Teamwork feats. The conditions must be met. The conditions happen to be positioning and actions.
Take Outflank now. The position is flanking the action is an attack that scores a critical.
So by the what Solo Tactics, Teamwork feats and Out Flank describe. If the conditions are met the Inquisitor get the bonus. The bonus being an Attack of Opportunity. Conditions being Flanking and the fighter's attack which scored a critical. Solo tactics gives the fighter out flank. The fighter gains no bonus by scoring a critical beyond just doing the critical. The bonus is the Attack of Opportunity that only the flanking ally can take when the conditions are met. Which they are.
"it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally." This is the bonus. The Fighter has the OutFlank Feat due to solo tactics. The critical gives the fighter no bonus but it gives the ally a bonus.
Now I can see the argument that being able to force an opponent to provoke at attack of opportunity is bonus and the fighter shouldn't be able to do it because they don't have the feat. I don't agree with this argument for several reasons. 1st I don't think being able to force an opponent to provoke an AoO is a bonus if you can't take that AoO. Second it means this feat is basically cut in half for it's usefulness with Solo tactics which doesn't make sense.
As for the Inquisitor giving the fighter an AoO that just doesn't work as per the rules of Teamwork feats and Solo tactics.
|
|
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.
The original poster posted 4 arguments. So lets look them.
a) Whenever I crit, the fighter gets an AoO but I don't get one if he crits. In this case, the ability to grant an AoO would be the Outflank bonus.
This on doesn't work at all. Here's why: The sentence is this "In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.". Notice the sentence structure. The sentence is saying when you score a critical then followed by comma. The first part the sentence is the condition the second part is the bonus. When you do X then Y happens. You aren't granting Y, it happens because you did X.
Even if that's wrong because this argument it still fails. Solo tactics makes it wrong. So if the a person with solo tactics does score a critical the person with out the out flank feat gain no bonus. Being able to make a attack of opportunity when you normally couldn't is a bonus.
b) Whenever the fighter crits, I get an AoO but he doesn't get one if I crit. The AoO on a critcally hit opponent would be the Outflank bonus.
This one I think works as I've posted many times before. If the fighter with out Out Flank scores a critical while flanking the fighter meats the positioning and action conditions for this feat to work with solo tactics granting an Inquisitor an attack of opportunity. There is room to argue against this but this argument has the most support.
c) If either one of us crits, the other one gets an AoO. The ability to grant an AoO and the free AoO on a critically hit opponent are both part of the Outflank bonus.
This is wrong. You MUST have both the feat for it to work like this. No way around that.
d) Neither one of us gets the AoO. The AoO triggered by the critical hit doesn't work with Solo Tactics at all.
This argument works but doesn't make much sense. You could argue that the scored critical allows a bonus of giving your ally an attack of opportunity. So if they don't have the feat this doesn't work even with solo tactics. You have to ignore the sentence structure a bit and assume my interpretation is wrong for this argument to work. As well team work feats were designed for the Inquisitor along with solo tactics and to say a feat doesn't work for with solo tactics doesn't really make much sense. This argument while valid has quite a bit less support.
So going by which argument has the most support then Solo tactics allows the Inquisitor to make an attack of opportunity when even the ally he is flanking with scores a critical.
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
This is not what is written in the feat. The opportunity is caused by the critical hit. If you don't crit, the monster doesn't provoke. The crit causes the monster to drop it's rear guard.
If you need the Inquisitor to 'look cool' then which is more impressive:
A) hitting someone from behind when they're busy
or
B) hitting someone so hard their pants fall off and your buddy gets a free swing?
If the conditions are met the Inquisitor get the bonus. The bonus being an Attack of Opportunity.
The bonus from Outflank is NOT an attack of opportunity. The bonus is everything after the word "Benefit:" in the feat description.
The sentence is saying when you score a critical then followed by comma. The first part the sentence is the condition the second part is the bonus. When you do X then Y happens. You aren't granting Y, it happens because you did X.
That's not a bonus, it's a result. You hit the goblin, his pants fall down. Action (land a crit) then Result (goblin provokes). The ability to do this is the BONUS granted by the feat. The Inquisitor can do X to cause Y to happen.
Giving the ally the AoO, in my interpretation, is giving them something they would not otherwise get.
The feat doesn't give the ally anything. It causes the monster to provoke, it's up to the ally to take advantage of that if he wants, just like every other time a monster provokes. Taking advantage of a lapse in defense to attack for free is an inherent part of combat. It's defined in the Combat rules. The Outflanker critical causes the target to drop it's defense in one specific area (the opposite side) which is why only one person can take advantage of it (the sides of his square are still protected).
This is why those two statements are not identical. As written, the bonus is causing a monster to provoke, which is why the Inquisitor can do that and the fighter can't. If the intent was to give you the ability to make an AoO any time someone -else- crits, it would have to be written that way.
The Outflanker critical causes the target to drop it's defense in one specific area (the opposite side) which is why only one person...
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.
If the conditions are met the Inquisitor get the bonus. The bonus being an Attack of Opportunity.The bonus from Outflank is NOT an attack of opportunity. The bonus is everything after the word "Benefit:" in the feat description.
Yes it is!
[QUOTE="Grick"
The sentence is saying when you score a critical then followed by comma. The first part the sentence is the condition the second part is the bonus. When you do X then Y happens. You aren't granting Y, it happens because you did X.That's not a bonus, it's a result. You hit the goblin, his pants fall down. Action (land a crit) then Result (goblin provokes). The ability to do this is the BONUS granted by the feat. The Inquisitor can do X to cause Y to happen.
Again yes it is. The Attack of Opportunity is the bonus. It occurs when something happens. The when is WHEN you score a critical.
Look at the sentence.
"In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally."
Then read this sentence from the Description of Team Work feats.
"Teamwork feats grant large bonuses, but they only function
under [b]specific circumstances[b]."As well as this sentence from the same paragraph.
"Teamwork feats provide no bonus if the listed conditions are not met."
So the first part that part, "whenever you score a critical against a flanked creature" is the condition. With out this condition nothing happens. No critical no attack of opportunity for the ally. The condition HAS TO BE MET first. Then the bonus occurs which is your ally getting an attack of opportunity.
It's black and white right there unless you ignore how team work feats work.
Again, "you" is the inquisitor, "your ally" is the non-inquisitor ally. It's that simple.
Which again means Grick (along with others) has it right.
Feat A: "Whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally."
Feat B: "Whenever your ally scores a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
People with what I consider to be the wrong interpretation would intepret these two wordings to provide exactly the same benefit when it comes to solo tactics. To me, it's very clear that these two wordings result in opposite benefits from solo tactics.
Just remember that "you" have the feat, and "your ally" doesn't.
|
|
Again, "you" is the inquisitor, "your ally" is the non-inquisitor ally. It's that simple.
Which again means Grick (along with others) has it right.Feat A: "Whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally."
Feat B: "Whenever your ally scores a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from you."People with what I consider to be the wrong interpretation would intepret these two wordings to provide exactly the same benefit when it comes to solo tactics. To me, it's very clear that these two wordings result in opposite benefits from solo tactics.
Just remember that "you" have the feat, and "your ally" doesn't.
Also remember that the feat was written with the assumption that "you" and "your ally" would be transposable since both would have the feat.
As much as I appreciate a good wording-based reading, it's pretty useless with the aforementioned assumption.
Teamwork feats were not written with Solo Tactics in mind. They were written as the rest of the book was written, directly addressing the player of the character. Teamwork feats require both/all parties involved to have the feat, making these 2 statements identical:
In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
..
In addition, whenever your ally scores a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
The are not in fact "identical," the ability specifically states that the person who is acting as if they have the ability DOES NOT gain any of the benefits of the ability. One person HAS the ability, the other is treated like they have the ability but doesn't. If you can find someplace that states or mentions the AoO for Outflank that is not listed under the WRITTEN OUT DESCRIPTION of BENEFIT: for the feat you would be right. The only place that the AoO is mentioned is under the BENEFIT of the feat, so anything past that point in the feat description does not work for the person who doesn't have the feat. Therefore no AoO for the Inquisitor as the AoO is from a BENEFIT of the feat that the flanking ally doesn't have.
Solo Tactics is what muddles this up. The obvious intent of Solo Tactics (Her allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they actually possess the feats themselves) is that the ally does not gain anything they would not otherwise get. Giving the ally the AoO, in my interpretation, is giving them something they would not otherwise get.
It doesn't muddle anything up.... It says allies do not get the benefit of the feat. The critical strike provoking an AoO is a LISTED BENEFIT. Again, the only place the AoO is mentioned is in that little area of the feat that the ally DOES NOT GET. Ergo, no AoO from the flanking ally. Nothing muddled and very clearly stated. You the inquisitor have the the feat so you give your opponent an AoO, your flanking ally does not have the benefit listed in Outflank so you the inquisitor do not get AoO when they crit. This is what the rules state, anything else is wishful thinking and house rules, which you are free to do if you want.
Both are valid logical conclusions. In fact it could be argued that giving neither the provoked AoO is also a logical conclusion, but to try to argue that the other point of view is somehow wrong is inaccurate.
Um, no. Logical would be reading the rules and realizing that the BENEFIT of outflank doesn't trigger an AoO if you don't have actually have the feat. Wishful thinking is what the other conclusion is as you want the inquisitor to gain the benefit of something that is specifically stated to NOT happen or occur. How can something be wrong when it is actually following RAW? You may not like it and want it to change but when the rules say X Y Z, those are the rules and they are not wrong.