ErrantPursuit wrote: StreamOfTheSky wrote: ErrantPursuit wrote: The marginalizing commentary in your spoiler tells me you haven't actually read what the Feat in question does, or if you have, then you didn't understand it clearly. While as the marginalizing commentary you have about me means what, exactly? StreamOfTheSky wrote: Allies getting the "amazing opportunity" to get hit easier by the foe is not "benefiting" from the feat. Shocker, I realize. Broken Wing Gambit wrote: Benefit: Whenever you make a melee attack and hit your opponent, you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against you until the end of your next turn or until your opponent attacks you, whichever happens first. If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat. Yes, they spell out the conditions required for the benefit in the benefit line. That doesn't mean every word in the entry is the benefit you're receiving.
Are you arguing that giving an enemy a +2 attack/damage bonus against you is a benefit? If you are, just come out and say so already instead of just selectively quoting the text without your own words in what I presume is a poor attempt to avoid having to actually utter something so stupid.
@StreamOfTheSky:You claimed that Broken Wing Gambit made your allies easier to hit. I pointed out that concept was the exact opposite of what the feat did, which is why I called into question if you had read or understood the feat's description. I thought it was self-evident, but next time I'll endeavor to be more clear.
No, I said it lets you (the bearer of the feat) make yourself easier to hit. It also allows you (the bearer of the feat) to get an AoO when another ally with the feat does the former and a foe takes the schmuck bait.
Only the 2nd thing is a benefit of the feat. The former is tactics/positioning. As per Solo Tactics, the Inquisitor's allies are treated as if they have the feat, but do not personally benefit from it and must still use the appropriate tactics/positioning to provide the Inquisitor with its benefit.
The allies grant the enemy the bonus to hit them; the Inquisitor reaps the AoOs from it. I think I've said this three times now... Maybe four.
StreamOfTheSky wrote: No, I said it lets you (the bearer of the feat) make yourself easier to hit. It also allows you (the bearer of the feat) to get an AoO when another ally with the feat does the former and a foe takes the schmuck bait. StreamOfTheSky wrote: Allies getting the "amazing opportunity" to get hit easier by the foe is not "benefiting" from the feat. Shocker, I realize.
Lets go line by line.
The benefit line lists several things the feat lets you do.
Line 1:
Benefit: Whenever you make a melee attack and hit your opponent, you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against you until the end of your next turn or until your opponent attacks you, whichever happens first.
Ok, you have the option to take a free action on a successful attack. Why would you do this? We continue reading, and find the answer.
Line 2: If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.
Ok, so we see the point now. In exchange for a greater chance to take damage yourself, you cause the enemy to leave themselves open while they try and murder you.
To have the option to get hit easier and take more damage, in order to cause the enemy to provoke, you need the feat.
In order to capitalize on this extra and not normally AoO provoking situation, you need the feat.
Without the feat, I suppose your GM could let you lower your AC and take more damage, but it wouldn't provoke.
Inquisitor has BWG. Allies do not. Inquisitors with Solo Tactics get to receive the listed benefits (not benefits as the traditional English definition of the word, since being easier to hit and extra damage taken could hardly be considered that, but instead used to describe a specific part of the feat entry i.e. the Benefits line) as if their allies also possessed the teamwork feats.
I believe the italicized portion is where the issue lies.
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.
Claiming that something listed as a benefit of the feat is tactics/positioning instead of a benefit(since it could not otherwise be done within the rules), is a blatant attempt to get something above and beyond what is granted by the ability.
Stream, Errant!
I suspect that you 2 don't have anything to fight about any more since I found the FAQ which clearly states that you count as your own ally in almost all situations, including Broken Wing Gambit. That pretty much pulls the rug out from under the whole argument, as far as I can tell.
I quoted the FAQ above. I repeat the citation below.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9nda
I have a question, still. The phrasing of BWG sort of, kind of suggests that it can only yield 1 AoO/character/round, but it doesn't specifically say that. What do you think?
"Benefit: Whenever you make a melee attack and hit your opponent, you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against you until the end of your next turn or until your opponent attacks you, whichever happens first. If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat."
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I have a question, still. The phrasing of BWG sort of, kind of suggests that it can only yield 1 AoO/character/round, but it doesn't specifically say that. What do you think?
"Benefit: Whenever you make a melee attack and hit your opponent, you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against you until the end of your next turn or until your opponent attacks you, whichever happens first. If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat."
Not at all, though for one character to get multiple attacks on the same opponent with BWG, something unusual would be happening.
Firstly, you cannot "re-up" BWG when you hit with the AO, because it's still active when you get the AO in the first place (similar to how you can't trip someone with the AO you get for them standing up from prone).
Now that that's out of the way, some situations in which BWG will grant multiple AoO's:
1) You actually have multiple characters with the feat. They all grant the bonus to the foe, who proceeds to Cleave or Whirlwind Attack or just spreads out their attacks for whatever reason. If they all have combat reflexes, they will each get up X AoO's where X is the number of BWG users, yes?
2) If you are in melee with a foe and you give them the +2 bonus, then they attack you before somehow provoking another AoO (allowing you to grant the bonus again) and attacking you again. This would be pretty unusual, but I bet a Magus (as the foe) could theoretically pull it off with Spell Combat (I think that's the attack and still cast ability), and surely there are other similar situations if enemies are granted an extra standard or some such nonsense.
3) You're a swashbuckler with Parry and Riposte and you get full attacked by someone you just granted the bonus to- AoO for the first attack, parry, riposte, AoO for the second attack. Granted, this class wasn't released in May when you guys were talking about this, but I saw your post and wanted to respond.
4) Possibly the easiest to pull off; BWG works until the *end* of your next turn or until they attack. So, if you hit someone the round before and they don't take the bait, you can walk out of melee and draw an AoO from them, countering with BWG. This is somewhat dangerous though, so you might want to use this on weakened foes likely to die from the AoO. If they don't die, you can walk back into melee and hit them again to re-up BWG. If they attack you again by your turn, you get a second AoO. Also, an example of getting an AoO on your own turn (always fun).
5) In addition to drawing AoO's in by walking away as described on 4, you can just use a combat maneuver to draw the AoO if you have lots of attacks. This can be useful, as your iterative attacks clearly aren't as likely to hit as your AoO's most of the time.
Basically, anytime you can hit someone out of turn to re-up the BWG bonus, apart from the AoO from BWG itself should be able to make it net multiple attacks per round. It's a great and interesting, not to mention tactical, feat that just gets stronger if you can use the teamwork element. Too bad it requires 5 ranks in bluff, making it unlikely to be an easy pick-up for the party tank. :/ Amazing on Cavaliers, though!
So, are people generally in agreement that you count as your own ally for broken wing?
DrakeRoberts wrote: So, are people generally in agreement that you count as your own ally for broken wing? I would not say that people are generally in agreement.
But,
FAQ, Core Rulebook, GM wrote: Ally: Do you count as your own ally?
You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."
posted October 2010
Do you count as your own ally?
Does the "make no sense or be impossible" clause apply to Broken Wing Gambit? Let's see,
Broken Wing Gambit wrote: Whenever you make a melee attack and hit your opponent, you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against you until the end of your next turn or until your opponent attacks you, whichever happens first. If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat. If you count as your own ally, then you can, as a Free Action, grant your opponent a +2 to attack and damage, and if he takes it, then it provokes an attack of opportunity from you and any other allies that also have this feat.
That makes sense and isn't impossible. The clause does not apply. That is RAW clarified by the FAQ.
It seems to me that you can use this in your character build in a PFS game, and if your GM balks, you can quote him this Feat description and this FAQ, and compel him to follow the rules of the game he is supposed to be refereeing.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: It seems to me that you can use this in your character build in a PFS game, and if your GM balks, you can quote him this Feat description and this FAQ, and compel him to follow the rules of the game he is supposed to be refereeing. That's easy. If I'm your GM I say it doesn't make sense. 'Nuff said. "Making sense" isn't a defined game term so it's still up to the GM.
claudekennilol wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: It seems to me that you can use this in your character build in a PFS game, and if your GM balks, you can quote him this Feat description and this FAQ, and compel him to follow the rules of the game he is supposed to be refereeing. That's easy. If I'm your GM I say it doesn't make sense. 'Nuff said. "Making sense" isn't a defined game term so it's still up to the GM. If it's your campaign, no justification is required. But PFS GMs aren't supposed to be capricious.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: claudekennilol wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: It seems to me that you can use this in your character build in a PFS game, and if your GM balks, you can quote him this Feat description and this FAQ, and compel him to follow the rules of the game he is supposed to be refereeing. That's easy. If I'm your GM I say it doesn't make sense. 'Nuff said. "Making sense" isn't a defined game term so it's still up to the GM. If it's your campaign, no justification is required. But PFS GMs aren't supposed to be capricious. It's not me being capricious if it's simply how I've always interpreted it even with the FAQ.
Then the question would be: why do you think it doesn't make sense?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Because it's labeled as a teamwork feat. And a feat labeled as a teamwork feat that works when you're fighting alone with no allies anywhere in sight doesn't make sense to me.
It's one thing to say you don't think it's right, but it's another to say you don't understand it.
Is it not sensible that a teamwork feat improves as more teamates have it, as opposed to it being necessarily useless if they don't?
DrakeRoberts wrote: Is it not sensible that a teamwork feat improves as more teamates have it, as opposed to it being necessarily useless if they don't? Considering being useless unless multiple characters have it is teamwork feats whole thing, yeah. Teamwork feats are not supposed to be usable by single characters. Even solo tactics just means the other characters don't usually need the feat, there still need to be multiple characters involved to trigger the effects.
As I said, it's one thing to say it's not supposed to work that way, even though the feat description and the FAQ disagrees with you, but are you really saying that interpreting yourself as your own ally means you do not understand how Broken Wing Gambit would work?
Reread the Feat description above. Reread the FAQ as well. Then tell me you can keep a straight face, walk a straight line, and look a PFS Player in the eye and tell him that interpreting himself as his own ally doesn't make sense, that it is unintelligible, impracticable, and unjustifyable.
This bearing in mind that I justifying it is precisely what I have done just a few posts up from this one.
Calth wrote: being useless unless multiple characters have it is teamwork feats whole thing, I think you are overstating.
Ultimate Combat, Teamwork Feats wrote: In most cases, these feats require an ally with the same feat to have a specific position on the battlefield. It is in most cases, not in all cases, that all allies must have the Teamwork Feat in question.
In this case, all your allies, including yourself according to FAQ, are entitled to an attack of opportunity on someone who takes a +2 to attack and damage that you offered to them as a Free Action after you made a successful melee attack upon them.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Wilhelm wrote: As I said, it's one thing to say it's not supposed to work that way, even though the feat description and the FAQ disagrees with you, but are you really saying that interpreting yourself as your own ally means you do not understand how Broken Wing Gambit would work?
Reread the Feat description above. Reread the FAQ as well. Then tell me you can keep a straight face, walk a straight line, and look a PFS Player in the eye and tell him that interpreting himself as his own ally doesn't make sense, that it is unintelligible, impracticable, and unjustifyable.
This bearing in mind that I justifying it is precisely what I have done just a few posts up from this one.
Being a teamwork feat is enough to disqualify it from the FAQ under the no sense clause, as it makes no sense for a teamwork feat to not require teamwork.
I think the real question is if the no sense clause means flavorwise, mechanics-wise, or physical possibility.
Calth wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: As I said, it's one thing to say it's not supposed to work that way, even though the feat description and the FAQ disagrees with you, but are you really saying that interpreting yourself as your own ally means you do not understand how Broken Wing Gambit would work?
Reread the Feat description above. Reread the FAQ as well. Then tell me you can keep a straight face, walk a straight line, and look a PFS Player in the eye and tell him that interpreting himself as his own ally doesn't make sense, that it is unintelligible, impracticable, and unjustifyable.
This bearing in mind that I justifying it is precisely what I have done just a few posts up from this one.
Being a teamwork feat is enough to disqualify it from the FAQ under the no sense clause, as it makes no sense for a teamwork feat to not require teamwork. Well, no.
Broken Wing Gambit may not require Teamwork, but it enjoys tremendous teamwork synergy. Every extra teammate that has Broken Wing Gambit gets to join in the fun. That clearly makes it a Teamwork Feat, even though you can use it alone.
And you do realize there is nothing intrinsic about Teamwork feats as a game term that says you can never use them alone, right? You've read the description of Teamwork Feats, right?
Ultimate Combat, Teamwork Feats wrote: In most cases, these feats require an ally with the same feat to have a specific position on the battlefield. It says "in most cases." It doesn't say, "in all cases."
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Ultimate Combat, Teamwork Feats wrote: In most cases, these feats require an ally with the same feat to have a specific position on the battlefield. It says "in most cases." It doesn't say, "in all cases."
It also doesn't say "you don't need an ally at all". That just means that in some other cases the ally doesn't need to be in a specific position, such as flanking.
Without a defined game term words have their normal English meaning. That pretty much precludes anything with the word 'teamwork' in it being a solo activity.
But then I am prone to reading the rules in unintelligible, impracticable and unjustifiable ways...apparently!
Excuse me for the necromancy, but I have to bring this up and bring a new perspective to the table.
To my understanding, it's a simple concept.
1) The Inquisitor has the feat.
2) The Inquisitor acts as if allies had the same feat, but they don't gain the benefits from it, while the Inquisitor does.
I read it as such, that the Inquisitor gains ALL BENEFITS from HIS PERSPECTIVE when reading the feat. As such, the ally gaining an AoO is the INQUISITOR'S BENEFIT, because I do have the feat, I act as if my allies had the feat, so when it's my turn and it reads "allies get an AoO", then it is MY teamwork feat that works and grants my allies an AoO.
However, when it's my ally's turn (it's not about the turns, just to give an example) and he gets hit, he actually does not have the feat, ergo me, his ally, which usually WOULD get the AoO if the ally actually had the feat, will NOT get the AoO.
So basically the rule is "when a teamwork feat states it does things, only execute the feat from the Inquisitor's perspective", as that is what they key of teamwork feats is.
It's basically "Your team has the feat multiple times, so when the requirements are fulfilled, profit from _each other_" (executing the feat multiple times from different players basically). So "my" teamwork feat works, which states they get an AoO, but theirs does not, because they don't actually have it. By benefit, they mean "benefit of having the feat".
Thoughts?
Quexlaw wrote: I read it as such, that the Inquisitor gains ALL BENEFITS from HIS PERSPECTIVE when reading the feat. As such, the ally gaining an AoO is the INQUISITOR'S BENEFIT, because I do have the feat, I act as if my allies had the feat, so when it's my turn and it reads "allies get an AoO", then it is MY teamwork feat that works and grants my allies an AoO. Surely, if the 'benefit' is an AoO, then the person who gets to make the AoO is the person who received the benefit... NOT the person who deliberately got themselves stabbed to provide the opening for their ally.
My take is the opposite of most of those in this thread... solo tactics requires allies to meet any positioning and action requirements of the teamwork feat. For broken wing gambit, that would mean they need to hit the opponent and then provide an opening (the +2 to hit) for the opponent to strike back. If the opponent then DOES strike back, the person with solo tactics gets an AoO.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
