| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, I found something that just seems...interesting. mildly ridiculous, but interesting.
Escape Route (Combat, Teamwork)
You have trained to watch your allies’ backs, covering them as they make tactical withdraws.Prerequisite: none
Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.
So say I'm a human cavalier with eye for talent, allowing my awesome mount to take this teamwork feat with me.
As I read it, as long as the mount is moving in squares adjacent to me, it will never provoke attacks of opportunity. Period.
What am I missing? Because it has to be something
Other than the gross violation of the intent of the teamwork feat?
Hm.
It never provokes attacks of opportunity from moving you can still provoke if you make an unarmed strike and don't have improved unarmed strike.
This is one of those cases there the RAW and RAI are not the same. It works by RAW, but not RAI.
It is really no different than a witch giving it to her familiar and having her familiar be on her shoulder so it moves with her.
PS:There is an archetype that allows a witch to give feats to a familiar.
I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Obviously, some sort of errata should be added here. If folks could flag it to try to have that done, I'd appreciate it.
Still, it makes me giggle.
|
A cavalier needn't use the eye for talent to make use of the combo.. since his bonded mount is able to (at sufficient level) go to 3 INT and then qualify for teamwork feats on its own.
Just saying.
While a GM is still allowed to say 'you can't use that one to ride around and never provoke AoOs..' it's still pretty bad form to do so on no basis other than "I don't like the rule".
On the other hand, it's great form, and indeed should be encouraged at every chance, to have the GM follow the intentions of the rule, rather than the words.
Back in the day, a rider and his mount were considered one creature for many effects, THIS being one of them.
EDIT:
For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat.
You share the mount's space, so you are not adjacent to it and vice versa.
"I don't like the rule is not bad form" if you don't think the RAW is used as it was intended to be used.
Now if you are using "I don't like the rule is not bad form", for no other reason than personal taste that is different.
|
|
On the other hand, it's great form, and indeed should be encouraged at every chance, to have the GM follow the intentions of the rule, rather than the words.
What I was getting at is it's bad form to assume that you know what the designers intended better than their own technical writers did. You may very well be right, but then again maybe you're not.
Whenever invoking Rule 0, you should always be able to honestly say you're not changing a rule just to punish a player or to satisfy some personal greivance (with a player or a rule that you simply don't like). If you can fairly say that to yourself, then by all means have at it. Its your table.
|
|
What I was getting at is it's bad form to assume that you know what the designers intended better than their own technical writers did. You may very well be right, but then again maybe you're not.
Wow. I erased my first set of posts several times, resisting my initial feelings at reading this. You (meaning the DM) are ALWAYS right when it comes to knowing what is best for your table. Just because it is published in a book doesn't make it gospel nor does it entitle a player to be able to use it.
I would not say you are always right, but you do have the responsibility to make the correct decision, and the right to do what you have to do in order to make that decision work.
Dessio, are you saying that GMs shouldn't change rules they don't like for their homegame?
|
|
Dessio, are you saying that GMs shouldn't change rules they don't like for their homegame?
Shouldn't change for no good reason or without giving it due thought, no.
Assuming that's not the case, then of course. Do what you will. I'm not saying it's unreasonable to say Escape Route doesn't work with your mount while mounted due to 'not being adjacent, but atop instead'. I'll even agree that I'd give it serious thought to running it that way, myself.
What people seem to be getting stuck on is how dare I suggest that people might NOT be able to know the game better than the designers who desgined it?
THAT's what I'm defensive of. No, you DON'T automatically know the game better than the designers themselves. Yes, it's possible you do. Granted. Please do me the favor in return of acknowledging that it's possible that you don't.
I think the following quote was the issue, not you saying the designers know the game better.
While a GM is still allowed to say 'you can't use that one to ride around and never provoke AoOs..' it's still pretty bad form to do so on no basis other than "I don't like the rule"
It assumes the GM is making a ruling based on "I don't like it", and not "That isn't how it works", which are two different things.
PS:I am not saying there are not GM's that won't shut something down based on personal taste alone, but many us consider that to be bad form, and agree with you in that regard.
|
|
It assumes the GM is making a ruling based on "I don't like it", and not "That isn't how it works", which are two different things.
Agreed. However, someone who just 'doesn't like' a rule will rather probably insist 'That's not how it works!'. He might even convince himself as an unintended byproduct of the effort to convince his players.
A GM should be striving to always question why he's making a change lest he find himself having crossed the line.
If you imput that punch-card to the DM Robotron 2000, yes, that would be correct.
However, any human DM worth his/her salt would say, "Uh, no. Mounts don't qualify for this feat."
The mount doesn't need to qualify. The Cavalier could give it the feat with his Tactician ability that gives all his allies the Cavalier's bonus teamwork feats. Just sayin'.
What I believe he was saying is that the intent of the feat was to simulate your allies covering you, and the mount which by RAW does make the idea work, is not following the flavor behind the feat.
edit:added "I believe"
I don't think the DM should change rules he doesn't like without talking to the players, getting their input and then making a decision. Regardless of the rule or the reason 5-6 people pondering an issue and giving their input into it will make for a better, more reasoned alteration (if necessary) than one person's knee jerk gut reaction to something.
'I don't like that". Well.. good for you. Talk to the other 5 people playing the game with you and see what they think.
-S
I think it could be argued that mounted movement doesn't qualify for the feat benefit according to a strict RAW reading.
An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.
Which is the mount doing -- "moving through squares adjacent to you", or "moving through squares within your space"? I would argue that the mount does neither of these.
If, instead, you want to argue that when I move I am "moving through squares within my space", then why bother with the mount at all? I'm my own ally, right? So all movement automatically qualifies as this feat.
Just to be clear changing a rule and clarifying intent are not the same thing.
Example, well actually 2 examples of not changing a rule, but clarifying intent.
|
As long as you are square with your players from the start, I don't see why a GM couldn't say: "This ability don't work this way as it don't fit with my vision of the game world."
The Antagonize feat isn't available in my game as I feel it is bad feat.
I will not allow a character to spend 16 hours every day casting the same cantrip (or the same spell with a long casting time) unless there is a dire emergency and it happen for a short spawn of time.
I will not allow someone to craft magic items for 8 hours and then turn around and cast spells for another 8 hours.
RAW this feat will allow what the OP suggest (there is no requirement for your ally to be in a adjacent square) but I feel that the mounted combat feat already depict reasonably well the capability of the rider to protect his mount.
What do you allow or not allow in your games is a matter of taste.
Off-topic:Why not let someone craft in the same day they adventure since it is assumed to be downtime when it happens?
I am about to leave the house so I won't be able to respond.
PS:I am not trying to you to change your game, but I have never seen anyone say that before so I am curious. I won't even make a counter-statement. :)
|
I think it could be argued that mounted movement doesn't qualify for the feat benefit according to a strict RAW reading.
An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.Which is the mount doing -- "moving through squares adjacent to you", or "moving through squares within your space"? I would argue that the mount does neither of these.
If, instead, you want to argue that when I move I am "moving through squares within my space", then why bother with the mount at all? I'm my own ally, right? So all movement automatically qualifies as this feat.
That was going to be my argument. Normally you would move on your turn and move through the squares of other people who are not moving and thus control the square. By moving with your mount on the same round you control no square and can't confer any benefits.
Even if you assume that it works the PC is not in fact moving. The mount is. So at best you would prevent AOO on your mount.
|
|
I think it could be argued that mounted movement doesn't qualify for the feat benefit according to a strict RAW reading.
An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.Which is the mount doing -- "moving through squares adjacent to you", or "moving through squares within your space"? I would argue that the mount does neither of these.
If, instead, you want to argue that when I move I am "moving through squares within my space", then why bother with the mount at all? I'm my own ally, right? So all movement automatically qualifies as this feat.
That was going to be my argument. Normally you would move on your turn and move through the squares of other people who are not moving and thus control the square. By moving with your mount on the same round you control no square and can't confer any benefits.
Even if you assume that it works the PC is not in fact moving. The mount is. So at best you would prevent AOO on your mount.
My view on it is that since you are both overlapping at all times and exactly, neither of you are moving relative to the other and the feat doesn't work. This same argument precludes using the feat with yourself.
Note that adjacent does not mean == 5', it means <= 5'. If this were not true then you could not attack creatures in your own square because they would not be an "adjacent opponent" and thus could not be attacked in melee. This is based on the closest thing to a game definition the system has, which is in the combat chapter under the Attack heading (which uses the phrase "within 5'", which would include in your square).
*However*, the term "adjacent square" *does* mean exactly 5', as a square cannot be adjacent to itself (based on the dictionary definition of adjacent).
|
|
It is not what I did say Wraith.
I don't allow anyone to spend 16 hours every day doing taxing things it there isn't a dire emergency.
In RL there have been troops that have force marched for 24 hours and then fought (if I recall exactly it was a Light Infantry brigade in the Sepoy wars). Under battle alert you can have your man do combat duty for 8 hours, rest for 4 hour and then repeat if and go on for a few days.
You can't do that for a week without a sharp drop in efficiency.
Casting spells require attention and precision (I will not say concentration as in game that means something specific). Even if the current fatigue rules don't depict it in any way, human attention drop after enough hours of exacting work. It is possible to do drudge work for 12-14 hours every day, it is not possible to do precision work for the same span of time and keep the same quality you will get doing it for a more reasonable span of time.
To return to your initial question, let's make 3 examples.
Our character live in a city that has been assaulted by a group of wandering monsters. He is part of the militia. He get the call to go and defend the city, so he gather his weapons, rush to the battle fight, his side win. Then he is freed from his duty and can resume his normal work.
All factored he has spend 1 hour doing that.
As it is a occasional interruption he will be fully capable of doing his 8 hours of crafting work for the day. No problem even if he had 9 or 10 hours of activity in that day.
Example 2: our character is part of a adventuring group. They have spent 4 hour wandering in the wilderness searching for a dungeon, then spent another 3 hours clearing it. Factor in another hour setting up camp, securing it, cleaning your gear of blood and so on, plus guard duty for the night.
The player would have to give me some seriously good reason for me to allow him to spend time crafting, as his character would be fairly tired and distracted.
Example 3: our character has been riding along a normal trail with his party for 8 hours. He had to be reasonably alert but nothing happened and it was a fair day.
His companions are willing to leave him skip guard duty, so there is no need for him to spend hours doing that. I see no problem in allowing him to craft stuff for 4 hours if the environ permit it. he could do that for several days in a row without problems.
The key is that our characters aren't robot. They don't live with a schedule of 8 hour adventuring, 8 hours crafting, 8 hour sleeping. They eat and use the bushes, they sometime bathe. Some of them want to take a smoke, get drunk, have a chat, read a book or have some private time with their girlfriend or boyfriend. Their horses need grooming and their equipment need to be cleaned.
I have argued with a guy in these boards that think that his characters will have no problem casting Create Demiplane for 18 hours/day every day for 107 years (with a ring of sustenance to manage that) as he would live forever.
I think to human or demihuman can manage to do that and still be classified as "sound of mind" after a few weeks.
The Vietnam War Memorial is probably one of the most accurate documents in the world.
Yet, to date? 62 names have been corrected, while other families have chosen to have the names remain as they are. (Source)
The Vietnam War Memorial probably had more editors than Paizo.