The first quote does say "if doing so would make no sense or be impossible" and "almost always". I think the Gang Up feat is one of the few situations where you don't count yourself as an ally. It doesn't really make sense since the feat says at least two allies need to threaten the same opponent. Just two allies (if including yourself as one of the two) doesn't really seem like ganging up to me.
I agree with Submit, it seems pretty obvious that the intent was "you and at least two additional allies".
What "makes sense" to me is that if it is 2 on 1, the 2 have to be flanking their opponent to get a flanking bonus. Whereas, having the Gang Up feat and a 3 on 1 allows you to bypass actual flanking because the extra (3rd) ally is enough of a distraction for you get that "as if I was really flanking" bonus.
I have always gone by the 2 people interpretation. It seems kind of up if you need 3, you can probably move into a flank anyway of you're all focusing one one guy.
|
According to an official answer, which still hasn't made it into the FAQ, you do NOT count as your own ally for Gang Up, but need two other members of your party to be threatening the target to gain the benefit.
Still good for the Rogue, as it destroys the "back into the corner to avoid flanking" situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The intent is 2 other allies. No amount of sophistry will change that.
Its kind of good for the rogue, but if you are behind your allies using a reach weapon the oponent still gets +4 softcover to AC.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It's just as much sophistry to say that it IS two allies, since taking FAQs as a supplement to RAW, you have the problem of the "clarification" in the FAQ stating that "your allies" = "you and your allies". The conditions under which it is not equal are per RAW 100% open to interpretation because "making sense" is entirely about interpretation.
As written then, it is just as much "sophistry" to say it requires 2 allies as 3. The problem I have is the fact that the wording of the FAQ says that by default the "your allies" text in the Gang Up feat means "you and 1 other ally" unless you decide to make your own interpretation... the problem is they should NOT leave numbers like that up to that much interpretation. You are using your own "logic" (opinion) by either stating that it takes 2 or 3 given how it is written.
it does not say "your allies" = "you and your allies"
It says:
"your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."
almost always does not equal always. That is a misread of the FAQ.
By your reading, the "teamwork feat" outflank only needs one person. After all it just says:
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.
By your reading, you should be able to take this feat, and, as long as you are flanking, you would get all the bonuses.
|
|
Oh, can I take this feat in your game and never gain AoO's from moving?
Escape Route (Teamwork)
You have trained to watch your allies' backs, covering them as they make tactical withdraws.
Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.
After all, if I am always my ally, and I am always moving in my own squares..
If you can get your gm to buy it more power to you. If you're the gm you can rule it however you want.
You don't have to convince me. The RAI is as obvious to me as it is to you. The only problem is that the result differs. As I said if you can get your gm to buy it or if it makes you feel better agree with your assertion of RAI then more power to you.
|
|
This is flawed. You count as your own ally, yes, but flanking has specific rules. Outflank says nothing about changing the mechanics of flanking. It only says it increases the bonus you get for doing so. You are your own ally according to the FAQ, yes, but you are still only one ally. Even with the FAQ text, if you are by yourself, you cannot flank, even if you are your own ally, because flanking requires an ally on each side of your opponent, and you as a single ally cannot accomplish this.
Not flawed. So, lets look at the following situation.
Rogue with outflank flanking an orc with a fighter who does not have the outflank feat.
so we have this:
a) the Rogue is flanking the orc with the fighter
b) the rogue counts as his own ally
thus the rogue and his ally (himself) are both in a flanking posistion with the same orc. By the feat and your reading of ally, every time the rogue crits, he should be able to take an additional attack via an AoO (up to 1 or his max dex bonus if he has combat reflexes). After all, both the rogue and his ally (himself) have the feat and are in a flanking position.
Or are you saying that in this situation, the ally is not the rogue and needs to be a different person?
I'll agree that it needs clarification, but for a different reason. If I'm reading gang up correctly, combining it with outflank would allow an archer to get attacks of opportunity at range. It also potentially gets rid of the need for precise shot.
The melee benefit of this feat would be pretty minimal if you didn't count as one of the two allies threatening, but if my reading is correct, this feat has potential for an archer.
And Happler, your situations are flawed. The idea that you count as your own ally doesn't imply that you can count yourself twice, which is what each of your situations does. Even escape route, which uses "an ally who also has this feat" has an implied you in the word also.
EDIT: Also, I think it's entirely possible that "you and your allies" and "your allies" is intended to be the same thing when those exact words are used. This would probably mean it only applies to spells, since they usually use that exact wording.
|
|
I'll agree that it needs clarification, but for a different reason. If I'm reading gang up correctly, combining it with outflank would allow an archer to get attacks of opportunity at range. It also potentially gets rid of the need for precise shot.
The melee benefit of this feat would be pretty minimal if you didn't count as one of the two allies threatening, but if my reading is correct, this feat has potential for an archer.
And Happler, your situations are flawed. The idea that you count as your own ally doesn't imply that you can count yourself twice, which is what each of your situations does. Even escape route, which uses "an ally who also has this feat" has an implied you in the word also.
EDIT: Also, I think it's entirely possible that "you and your allies" and "your allies" is intended to be the same thing when those exact words are used. This would probably mean it only applies to spells, since they usually use that exact wording.
I understand how mine are flawed. Was using them to point out how Setzer's reading was flawed.
setzer9999's reading of gang up has the rogue counting as twice. The rogue is counting as the "you" not in official flanking, and one of the 2 ally who are threatening.
Also, gang up does not allow ranged flanking. The core book states that only melee weapons can flank:
Flanking
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
Nothing in Outflank removed the requirement for a melee attack. I am currently unaware of any way for a ranged attack to gain the benefits of flanking.
Any thoughts? Official input?
I go with your reading of it, but that's mostly because
1) This is only really worth a feat if you have Sneak Attack, and
2) Rogues are reasonably feat starved, and
3) I personally view Combat Expertise as a punishment feat. (That is, it forces you to have a stat high on a character that you probably don't want to have to spend the points on, it forces you to take a feat that is also weaker than most other feats, and it's a feat you need for other feats which actually are cool).
So I look at this and think: semi-auto flanking at the cost of two feats on a rogue? Yeah, that's not breaking the game.
I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish at this point Setzer. You made your case, most but not all of us disagree. You're free to play however you or your GM decides to until the FAQ appears should one ever be created (and even afterwards, I doubt SKR will knock down your door in the middle of the night if you decide to tweak a feat). But you aren't going to convince anyone of anything by repeating the same argument you made in the first post over and over; we have our opinion on what the intent of the rule was and you have yours, and as you have mentioned several times what "makes sense" is entirely open to interpretation. So what more is there to be said?
Oh there that official clarification is...
This is one of those "unless it doesn't make sense" exceptions. If you counted as your own ally for the purpose of Gang Up, then you'd ALWAYS get a flanking bonus if you had at least one other ally threatening your opponent. It would be a no-brainer feat for rogues because it would mean you could always sneak attack from flanking.
The point of Gang Up is to allow *you* to flank someone if your buddies already have it flanked.
|
|
As said above, it means you + 2. I have a rogue character that uses this feat. It basically lets you not have to be in a specific position to gain flanking and sneak attack, all you need are two other buddies attacking it too, presumably providing enough distraction to cause the bonus to come into effect. Never would I ever assume that I am my own ally in regards to wording like that.
"You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent"
very clear meaning. If my boss said that I get something if I bring two of my co-workers, that means me plus two other people.
It never ceases to amaze me that peoples interpretations of just about anything can be so different from one another. What seems so obvious to some, is open for interpretation by others. I think that people tend to look at how they want something to work, and try to find evidence to fit thier view. This is in no-way meant as a negative towards anyone. I fully admit I work in that manner too.
<sarcasm>It's just that, in the end, I'm always right!</sarcasm>
*** just stumbled across this thread.. seems I missed most of the fun but wanted to weigh in anyway.
Gotta love threads where numerous people give the same answer and it doesn't matter.
