You are always considered your own ally, so yeah, probably.
Might be best to do this as a monk, if you can get weapons with the correct crits to work in a flurry, so you can just make all your attacks with the Kukri until you crit.
You almost always count as your own ally.
One of the known exceptions to "you are your own ally" is the Gang Up feat. That feat is a "doesn't make sense" case because it's Too Good Otherwise.
So take that under consideration :)
You almost always count as your own ally.
One of the known exceptions to "you are your own ally" is the Gang Up feat. That feat is a "doesn't make sense" case because it's Too Good Otherwise.
So take that under consideration :)
That is a fair point. I don't think this is a situation where it would make no sense, but I can easily see some looking at it that way. And I'll be honest, if it were my game, I wouldn't allow it, despite the fact that I believe it is correct by the RAW.
|
" When you confirm a critical hit against a creature, you can choose to forgo the effect of the critical hit and grant a critical hit to the next ally who hits the creature with a melee attack before the start of your next turn. Your attack only deals normal damage, and the next ally automatically confirms the hit as a critical."
You can't be the next ally to hit him if you are the current ally hitting him.
" When you confirm a critical hit against a creature, you can choose to forgo the effect of the critical hit and grant a critical hit to the next ally who hits the creature with a melee attack before the start of your next turn. Your attack only deals normal damage, and the next ally automatically confirms the hit as a critical."
You can't be the next ally to hit him if you are the current ally hitting him.
You could if you're full attacking.
|
|
You could if you're full attacking." When you confirm a critical hit against a creature, you can choose to forgo the effect of the critical hit and grant a critical hit to the next ally who hits the creature with a melee attack before the start of your next turn. Your attack only deals normal damage, and the next ally automatically confirms the hit as a critical."
You can't be the next ally to hit him if you are the current ally hitting him.
You're still not the "next ally". It says "the next ally who hits" not "the ally who lands the next hit". Butterfly Sting has to be handed off to another PC or friendly NPC.
You're still not the "next ally". It says "the next ally who hits" not "the ally who lands the next hit". Butterfly Sting has to be handed off to another PC or friendly NPC.You could if you're full attacking." When you confirm a critical hit against a creature, you can choose to forgo the effect of the critical hit and grant a critical hit to the next ally who hits the creature with a melee attack before the start of your next turn. Your attack only deals normal damage, and the next ally automatically confirms the hit as a critical."
You can't be the next ally to hit him if you are the current ally hitting him.
The next ally that hits is you. You're acting like the wording somehow requires "next" to refer to an ordering of persons, rather than an ordering of actions.
If I give you $1, say, "Kiss the next person that gives you $1," then give you another $1, will you kiss me? (Assuming you're the sort that would listen to me in the first place)
Yes, you should, because I was the next person to give you the $1, despite the fact that I had literally just done it seconds before. Similarly, if you hit a guy and then trigger an effect that happens the next time someone hits him, it will trigger if you hit him again.
To put it in further perspective, how would you rule it if I triggered Butterfly Sting on my last iterative attack, three of my allies went and missed with their attacks, and then on the target's turn, he moved away from me, triggering an AoO that I hit with--would you still deny me Butterfly Sting?
there is no problem with being your own ally for buttefly sting, you can just keep auto confirming crits and passing them along till your turn ends.
|
Not only is there no reason why it shouldn't work, it's even thematic. It becomes a 'feint with the one weapon, smash with the other' style. The requirements to consistently execute the manoeuvre — Combat Expertise, Butterfly Sting, Two-Weapon Fighting, and the ability to hit accurately and confirm your critical threats — make this in no way overpowered.
Its ambiguous, but I wouldn't allow it.
How is "You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible" ambiguous in this sense?
It hasn't been stated by the feat that you don't count as your own ally. It makes sense thematically. It is certainly not impossible to be one's ally in this situation. I fail to see ambiguity here.
|
Not only is there no reason why it shouldn't work, it's even thematic. It becomes a 'feint with the one weapon, smash with the other' style. The requirements to consistently execute the manoeuvre — Combat Expertise, Butterfly Sting, Two-Weapon Fighting, and the ability to hit accurately and confirm your critical threats — make this in no way overpowered.
Its ambiguous, but I wouldn't allow it.How is "You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible" ambiguous in this sense?
It hasn't been stated by the feat that you don't count as your own ally. It makes sense thematically. It is certainly not impossible to be one's ally in this situation. I fail to see ambiguity here.
What's ambiguous (at least to me), is the phrase "next ally". I tend to agree with Ssalarn that you would be the current ally, and the feat never refers to the next hit or attack - only the next ally. No doubt you can be your own ally, but when you throw in the word next it gets muddy - or in the least ambiguous.
To be honest I can't even begin to infer what the author is implying here so if I were GM I'd let the table decide.
There are instances where you don't count as your own ally and it doesn't say so. You need to evaluate each instance on its own merits in this case.
Sorry, didn't see the post, but Funky Badger is correct. My first post in this thread has the link to a relevant thread.