It's not a teamwork feat, but there is a similar combat feat, Gang Up.
Plus: Doesn't require a companion, allies don't need to be adjacent to you or in the same square, allies don't need the feat for you to get the bonus
Minus: Need at least two other allies instead of one companion
Second the recommendation for Gang Up. That's even more fun when you (or an ally) are large and/or has reach: you can threaten so many targets.
If you can't count on two allies, another option is the [url=http://archivesofnethys.com/ArchetypeDisplay.aspx?FixedName=Swashbuckler Mouser]Swashbuckler Mouser[url]. When the mouser enters a target's square, he counts as both adjacent and flanking for all allies adjacent to that target (or specific square of that target, for larger creatures).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<Record Scratch Sound Effect!!>
Don't you normally count as your own ally? Gang up says that if at least two of your allies are threatening the same opponent you are considered to be flanking. Doesn't that mean that if you and one other ally threaten the same target then you flank?
...
Normally, I'd be upset as that's blatantly against RAI, but honestly I love that RAW reading where "Other" is lacking, because ANYTHING that makes it easier for Rogues to Sneak Attack is welcome.
So, yeah - GET SOME!!!
Don't you normally count as your own ally? Gang up says that if at least two of your allies are threatening the same opponent you are considered to be flanking. Doesn't that mean that if you and one other ally threaten the same target then you flank?
Not likely.
The FAQ says:
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."
Emphasis mine.
Gang Up says:
You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.
Given that the name of the feat is "Gang Up" and not "Pair Up", and given that interpreting "two of your allies" to include you would make no sense for the feat's title or for it's flavor text ("You are adept at using greater numbers against foes"), and given that "at least two" COULD have been worded as "you and one other" but was not, it would seem that this interpretations falls into the "make no sense" part of the FAQ that I bolded.
Of course, this is open to every GM's interpretation; what makes sense to one GM may not make sense to another. Nevertheless, I think the intent of the feat is quite clear and in this case, it makes no sense to include you as your ally in this context.
Don't you normally count as your own ally? Gang up says that if at least two of your allies are threatening the same opponent you are considered to be flanking. Doesn't that mean that if you and one other ally threaten the same target then you flank?Not likely.
The FAQ says:
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."Emphasis mine.
Gang Up says:
You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.Given that the name of the feat is "Gang Up" and not "Pair Up", and given that interpreting "two of your allies" to include you would make no sense for the feat's title or for it's flavor text ("You are adept at using greater numbers against foes"), and given that "at least two" COULD have been worded as "you and one other" but was not, it would seem that this interpretations falls into the "make no sense" part of the FAQ that I bolded.
Of course, this is open to every GM's interpretation; what makes sense to one GM may not make sense to another. Nevertheless, I think the intent of the feat is quite clear and in this case, it makes no sense to include you as your ally in this context.
The term "gang up" can technically be applied even to two people - "Jenny and Paul ganged up on me!" so there's precedent in the language that two people can, indeed, "gang up" on someone
But, really, that's semantics/colloquialisms.
I agree 1000% that the clear intention was for 3+ people, one being yourself and two other allies, focusing on a single creature.
However, honestly, I would totally say that RAW rules in this case SOLELY because the end result is that Rogues have an hilarious trick to Sneak Attack more reliably that way.
The key here is that lack of the word "other".
"You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two other allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning" would be very clear that the ruling is 3 or more people.
But right now, because of the "Allies" rule that Supervillain pointed out, it's an oversight that (for the purposes of Pathfinder) presents a rule with JUST enough ambiguity that it could honestly be applied for just you and one ally.
Anyway, I'm inclined to go "y'know... just let this one hiccup slide and let the poor little bastards have a trick" even if we all know you're technically right when all is said and done.
I would totally say that RAW rules in this case
What RAW? Do you have a cite?
I ask because I thought there was no RAW on this, just the FAQ which establishes the rule AND the exceptions in one single sentence.
Benefit: You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.
Again, you're right, and I don't think anyone would say you're not, that the INTENTION was for 2 others AND you to all get on a monster.
But, I say RAW because game terminology is that "Ally/Your Allies = You or Others on your team".
Since the feat says "at least two of your Allies", and you, by game terminology, do count as an Ally, that means that, RAW you need but 1 other Ally to target a monster for the Feat's requirements be met to allow you to Flank.
This is an obvious oversight, and it's obvious that it's NOT how the feat was INTENDED to work, but the end result is that it just makes Martials, and especially the Rogue, better - so what's the harm, really, in hitting the RAW button pretty hard here?
|
I was looking at Gang Up for a low INT melee Hunter. I'd prefer Pack Flanking, because I am sympathetic to the idea that Gang Up is intended to be 3 or more allies.
BUT for some reason Pack Flanking is not a Combat Feat. This is really annoying and doesn't make sense to me. When else do you flank except in combat? It also means that Brawler's Cunning does not suffice as a route to qualify for Pack Flanking, and similarly a dip in Lore Warden is no help because you need INT 13 as well as Combat Expertise.
Hunter is a cool class, and it's powerful, but it's very MAD as a melee class. It needs decent physical stats and a bit of WIS for spellcasting. Adding a requirement for INT 13 in order to benefit from decent synergistic teamwork feats is harsh.
I was looking at Gang Up for a low INT melee Hunter. I'd prefer Pack Flanking, because I am sympathetic to the idea that Gang Up is intended to be 3 or more allies.
BUT for some reason Pack Flanking is not a Combat Feat. This is really annoying and doesn't make sense to me. When else do you flank except in combat? It also means that Brawler's Cunning does not suffice as a route to qualify for Pack Flanking, and similarly a dip in Lore Warden is no help because you need INT 13 as well as Combat Expertise.
@supervillan
You have been heard: Pack flanking will become a Combat feat in a next revisionMentionned thereas FAQ
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/pack-flanking-teamwork
|
I was looking at Gang Up for a low INT melee Hunter. I'd prefer Pack Flanking, because I am sympathetic to the idea that Gang Up is intended to be 3 or more allies.
BUT for some reason Pack Flanking is not a Combat Feat. This is really annoying and doesn't make sense to me. When else do you flank except in combat? It also means that Brawler's Cunning does not suffice as a route to qualify for Pack Flanking, and similarly a dip in Lore Warden is no help because you need INT 13 as well as Combat Expertise.
@supervillan
You have been heard: Pack flanking will become a Combat feat in a next revision
Mentionned thereas FAQ
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/pack-flanking-teamwork
|
|
Except this feat will never work as i am not aware of a single "animal" companion that can get an int 13.
Hunters grant all their teamwork feats to their animal companions via the Hunter Tactics class feature. The companion does not need to meet the prerequisites.
I was very happy with this FAQ outcome :)