I am pretty sure I ran this correctly, but I thought I would check what the general consensus was:
I have a Roc Riding cavalier in my game armed with a lance. The cavalier and roc both posses the feat “paired opportunists”.
**
Paired Opportunists (Combat, Teamwork)
You know how to make an enemy pay for lax defenses.
Benefit: Whenever you are adjacent to an ally who also has this feat, you receive a +4 circumstance bonus on attacks of opportunity against creatures that you both threaten. Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity). This does not allow you to take more than one attack of opportunity against a creature for a given action.
**
I have an enemy that moves adjacent to the roc mount from 10’ away (not a 5’ step) so he would draw an attack of opportunity from the lance wielding cavalier (he threatens 10’ away because of reach). The player was stating the roc also gets to take an attack of opportunity also, once the enemy moves adjacent since his partner also got to take an attack of opportunity. That totally seems wrong. The opportunity attack was triggered when the enemy attempted (it interrupts right?) to move out of the threatened square. The roc would need reach too to take an attack since the enemy is still 10’ away. Or is this one of those “even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity” situations covered by the feat. One of his arguments is that they both get to attack because the feat does not say they both need to threaten to gain an attack only that they gat a +4 if they both do. The feat already seems very powerful, I am not sure it works this way and grants reach to your partner.
Or is this not even a feat mechanics question and is his misunderstanding of the movement rules and when the attack of opportunity occurs.
I said that the Roc would need to threaten the square in order to trigger the opp, but he made the valid point that then the roc would be able to take the opp anyways. And what kind of situation would trigger the feat…..good point.
I have already told him that I will not allow the feat to work the way he wants, but I might soften my ruling if the rules support his position.
What say the masses….
|
You have to threaten to make the opportunity attack granted by Paired Opportunists. It says so right in the feat.
An example of a situation which would trigger for one threatening ally and not the other would be the Outflank teamwork feat, which gives your ally an opportunity attack when you crit.
Suppose your cavalier has Outflank and Paired Opportunists.
Suppose your mount has only Paired Opportunists.
Suppose your other allies all have Outflank.
You are flanking a creature with one of your allies.
Your ally crits the creature.
You, through the Outflank feat, get an attack of opportunity.
Normally, your mount would not get an attack of opportunity from a flanking ally critting.
Because your mount has Paired Opportunists, it gets an attack of opportunity, because you got one. But it still has to threaten.
That is what I think too. But, then why does the second line of the feat not say: "Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you *BOTH* threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity)."
The first line calls out *BOTH*, why not the second line, it makes it look like a different condition.
But, I am glad to hear my instincts were correct.
You should let him trade out the feat. It does nothing for him and his Roc since they threaten different squares and will never get AoOs on the same target.
Read it from the Roc's point of view.
Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally (the PC) also provoke attacks of opportunity from you (the Roc) so long as you (the Roc) threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity).
The roc does not threaten the enemy at the time the enemy provoked.
|
|
That is what I think too. But, then why does the second line of the feat not say: "Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you *BOTH* threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity)."
The first line calls out *BOTH*, why not the second line, it makes it look like a different condition.
But, I am glad to hear my instincts were correct.
Maybe the first ally stopped threatening in between the time he took his AoO and the time the second ally took his. The first ally could have repositioned the enemy with a combat maneuver, had his weapon destroyed by a black pudding, or lost his weapon via critical fumble, none of which would deny the second ally his AoO.