Good afternoon folks, and well met again.
The question stands as per the title, in one corner, we have Unexpected Strike.
In the other, we have Escape Route.
Here's the scenario: an Inquisitor who selected Escape Route moves into a square threatened by the Barbarian, but that square is adjacent to an ally. Because of Solo Tactics, Inquisitors can treat allies as having the feat when determining if they would benefit from it.
Is there a guideline out there to determine which resource trumps another? I would think the rage power trumps the feat because it is a much more limited resource that can only be used while raging, and furthermore can only be used once per rage. In contrast the feat is useful all day as long as the triggering circumstances are met?
Thank you for any and all constructive input, and especially any with references to standing rules or precedents applicable to the situation.
- K
Two answers:
When I have two rules that completely oppose each other, I let them cancel each other completely. In this case, I would assume the two abilities cancel/negate each other completely, so I would resolve the movement as if the barbarian did not have Unexpected Strike and the inquisitor did not have Escape Route. Now just calculate the movement normally and the AoOs normally like those two abilities don't exist.
This means the barbarian would get an AoO if the inquisitor moves OUT OF (not "into" as you said) a square threatened by the barbarian. But once the barbarian uses this ability, he cannot do it again, so the inquisitor is then free to use his feat for the rest of the battle without problem.
Secondly, reading the Escape Route feat lets you protect an ally for his movement. It doesn't protect you from your own (your ally with the feat would use his feat to protect you). It's a fine point, but I see the Solo Tactics as allowing the inquisitor to use his Escape Route to protect his allies as they move around and provoke, as if the allies have the feat too, but Solo Tactics doesn't let the ally use the Escape Route feat he doesn't have to protect the inquisitor.
Unexpected strike wins out, but not because of it's being a limited resource. Unexpected strike specifically states that it can make the attack of opportunity whether or not that movement would normally provoke an attack of opportunity. Escape route prevents the inquisitor from provoking the attack, but the barbarian doesn't care about whether the attack was provoked or not, as he gets to make the attack anyway.
Unexpected strike wins out, but not because of it's being a limited resource. Unexpected strike specifically states that it can make the attack of opportunity whether or not that movement would normally provoke an attack of opportunity. Escape route prevents the inquisitor from provoking the attack, but the barbarian doesn't care about whether the attack was provoked or not, as he gets to make the attack anyway.
Thank you Angry Wiggles. Upon further readings, I do see the extra emphasis placed on "whether or not" there. This seems to sync up with my gut feelings, and helps limit the already powerful Escape Route.
Thank you for your input, DM_Blake. I must disagree with you on one point however.
Secondly, reading the Escape Route feat lets you protect an ally for his movement. It doesn't protect you from your own (your ally with the feat would use his feat to protect you). It's a fine point, but I see the Solo Tactics as allowing the inquisitor to use his Escape Route to protect his allies as they move around and provoke, as if the allies have the feat too, but Solo Tactics doesn't let the ally use the Escape Route feat he doesn't have to protect the inquisitor.
Here is the quote from Solo Tactics, emphasis mine.
"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."
To me, the "bonus" in question (i.e. the benefit of the feat) is negating AoOs from movement adjacent to allies. After all, without that part of the feat, it does nothing, i.e. does not confer a benefit. As you point out, the allies cannot actually benefit from the feat themselves. Therefore, they cannot move safely because even though the Inquisitor has Escape Route, the allies do not.
Consider the FAQ on the use of Solo Tactics and Outflank, found here. In that case, the question was if whether allies' crits would provoke an AoO from the Inquisitor. Part of the Benefit of the feat is that it whenever "you" score a critical hit, it provokes from your "ally." I use quotations here to emphasize the mobile nature of these terms in how they interact with Solo Tactics, namely in how they get reversed. So, to use the same logic, with Solo Tactics your "ally" can provide the Benefit for "you." Again, the benefit here is not being a target of an AoO for movement, so the allies give that benefit for the Inquisitor but cannot receive it because they do not actually possess that feat.
According to my understanding, at least, the Inquisitor would still move safely under normal circumstances, until they meet a Barbarian with this rage power.
My understanding that there is a class that confers the benefits of teamwork feats to others: a Cavalier using Tactician.