There. Black and white RAW.Teamwork feats grant large bonuses, but they only function under specific circumstances. In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield. Teamwork feats provide no bonus if the listed conditions are not met.
.
That is the basic rule for teamwork feats generically, as unmodified by Solo tactics.
Solo tactics takes away the need for the ally to possess the teamwork feat at all, it's most basic requirement. So the ability to act is pretty much immaterial.
Similarly, the Push to the Wall feat allows for flanking without the wall needing to be able to threaten the opponent as well.
Quintain, you may have missed this part as posted by Abrisene:
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.
That would be Solo Tactics (specific rule) directly referring back to Team Work Feats (general rules). Now read:
Teamwork feats grant large bonuses, but they only function under specific circumstances. In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield. Teamwork feats provide no bonus if the listed conditions are not met. Note that allies who are paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats.
...
In addition to Solo Tactics' limitations/restrictions:
1. PttW has limitations of it's own.
2. As if X =/= X.
3. This is supported by multiple RAW examples of treat as, some of which are detailed HERE and HERE.
Quintain, are you saying paralyzed and unconscious allies will count for solo tactics? I just can't reason using the rogue's unconscious body as a flanking partner, much less the target of solo tactics.
Once again, utter black and white RAW. There is no interpretation here, there is no variable way to read the rules. Your reasoning is so wrong that this entire argument has been needless; the quotes from RAW should have immediately ended the thread.
Quintain, are you saying paralyzed and unconscious allies will count for solo tactics? I just can't reason using the rogue's unconscious body as a flanking partner, much less the target of solo tactics.
Once again, utter black and white RAW. There is no interpretation here, there is no variable way to read the rules. <snip premature raising of the flag of victory>
No, paralyzed and unconscious allies don't count for teamwork feats generically, but then again, paralyzed and unconscious allies don't count for flanking, either (they can't threaten).
Press up to the Wall seems to satisfy the threatening component of the flanking test all by itself, and being able to threaten an opponent presumes the ability to act against that opponent. Now, unanimated walls can't threaten, but you can still flank. Given these presumptions, why would that not also satisfy the requirement for the application of solo tactics applying teamwork feats for flanking as well?
Personally, as a GM, I'd allow it. But YMMV.
Oh, and if my argument is so wrong, why are you continuing to argue? You should be confident enough with the strength of your counter that you no longer need to post.
We are simply discussing the rules to an RPG game. If you cannot handle the discussion without insults, kindly exit the conversation.
He's either mad that he's wrong and trying desperately to rationalize or he's been deliberately spreading disinformation. Either way, logic and reason won out in the end.Quintain, are you saying paralyzed and unconscious allies will count for solo tactics? I just can't reason using the rogue's unconscious body as a flanking partner, much less the target of solo tactics.
Once again, utter black and white RAW. There is no interpretation here, there is no variable way to read the rules. Your reasoning is so wrong that this entire argument has been needless; the quotes from RAW should have immediately ended the thread.
I can guarantee you that I have no emotional connection to this thread at all whatsoever. I'm not the one presuming another's motivations for being in the discussion.
But your projection is duly noted.
Probably cheese, but if Press to the Wall lets you treat a wall as an ally for the purposes of flank, and Solo tactics lets you treat allies as having your team work feats, would having a foe backed to a wall be enough to trigger outflank and precise strike?
To the OP: is this for Pathfinder Society?
What you all fail to realize is that I'm showing the reasons why the feat and class ability work together by discussing *how* the specific game conditions are fulfilled by the feat and class ability.
Now, if this discussion were specifically for Pathfinder Society, I would agree that your last point is probably the one that is the deal breaker (and noticeably that it is not the ones that are raising the flag of victory so smugly). Because with Pathfinder Society, RAW rules and Solo tactics makes no exception in its rule for the application of feats that change the basic assumptions of the ruleset.
Outside of Pathfinder Society, however, the *why's* and *how's* of the rules matter when seeing if two abilities that were written by completely different authors who very likely had no thought of these two abilities even existing together work together. If at all.
This is what I'm discussing.
and if my argument is so wrong, why are you continuing to argue? You should be confident enough with the strength of your counter that you no longer need to post.
We are simply discussing the rules to an RPG game. If you cannot handle the discussion without insults, kindly exit the conversation.
I'm continuing to post because I respect you enough to not ignore your views and I'm trying to use logic to convince you to my views. I could just say "You're wrong" and then exit the thread, but that hardly achieves anything.
I did not insult you in any way shape or form, unless you consider calling your understanding of the rules wrong as an insult.
Please discuss the matter at hand.
Now, if this discussion were specifically for Pathfinder Society, I would agree that your last point is probably the one that is the deal breaker (and noticeably that it is not the ones that are raising the flag of victory so smugly). Because with Pathfinder Society, RAW rules and Solo tactics makes no exception in its rule for the application of feats that change the basic assumptions of the ruleset.
You literally just admitted you were wrong, and then proceeded to say "Well RAW doesn't function the same in every game". That is wrong. RAW works the same in every single game. We are not discussing how we think the rules should work, we are discussing how they do.
But I'm with Kazaan. Every single argument needed and more has been presented in crystal clear excruciating detail, and you are backed so far into a corner that you're claiming "RAW isn't always RAW". Between that and you lashing out at imagined slights, I think I will take your advice and leave the conversation, because there is clearly no point of any further discussion.
Now, if this discussion were specifically for Pathfinder Society, I would agree that your last point is probably the one that is the deal breaker (and noticeably that it is not the ones that are raising the flag of victory so smugly). Because with Pathfinder Society, RAW rules and Solo tactics makes no exception in its rule for the application of feats that change the basic assumptions of the ruleset.You literally just admitted you were wrong, and then proceeded to say "Well RAW doesn't function the same in every game". That is wrong. RAW works the same in every single game. We are not discussing how we think the rules should work, we are discussing how they do.
But I'm with Kazaan. Every single argument needed and more has been presented in crystal clear excruciating detail, and you are backed so far into a corner that you're claiming "RAW isn't always RAW". Between that and you lashing out at imagined slights, I think I will take your advice and leave the conversation, because there is clearly no point of any further discussion.
I admitted that I was wrong, but not for any of the justifications you gave: the wall is an ally, it has nothing to do with your parrsing of "treated as" or "purpose". Every justification for it not working you gave was utterly unpersuasive.
How Solo Tactics fails is for the simple fact that the wall is inanimate, and solo tactics requires the ally to be able to act. This was not any part of your argument nor for any of the trio of you Kazaan or Shadowlord.
It was a different poster that convinced me that Solo Tactics would not work and for a wholly different reason than the ones you brought up. They also did it without all the internet-chest thumping.
You no more backed me into a corner than if I was standing in an open field. Keep trying though, whatever floats your boat.
The phrase that stops me from agreeing with you Quintain is how it is an ally for the purpose of determining flank.
But for nothing else. Not for teamwork feats or solo tactics.
It gives the one example that it can be an ally. I don't feel that RAW gives enough leeway for the rest to follow up for solo tactics.
Fair enough. I, personally, don't see the temporary/virtual conditions of being an ally or flanking as preventing Solo tactics from allowing the use of feats that also involve flanking from working.
Opinions differ. Yours is a more strict interpretation of the rules than mine.
Allies who are paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats.Technically a wall can't have any of those conditions, like wise a creature that is dead is immune to them as well.
Technically the wall isn't even an ally.
Also, I'm pretty sure the wall would still fall under this rule:
Allies who are paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats.
"Otherwise unable to act," is not a condition.
There. Black and white RAW.Teamwork feats grant large bonuses, but they only function under specific circumstances. In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield. Teamwork feats provide no bonus if the listed conditions are not met.
.
That is the basic rule for teamwork feats generically, as unmodified by Solo tactics.
Solo tactics takes away the need for the ally to possess the teamwork feat at all, it's most basic requirement. So the ability to act is pretty much immaterial.
Similarly, the Push to the Wall feat allows for flanking without the wall needing to be able to threaten the opponent as well.
Nothing in solo tactics removes the specific restrictions for teamwork feats in regards to their ability to act. e.g, an otherwise legitimate ally must still be conscious, not paralyzed, etc. They are treated as if they have the teamwork feat. In order for the teamwork feat to be functional they must be able to act.
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.
|
Allies who are paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats.Technically a wall can't have any of those conditions, like wise a creature that is dead is immune to them as well.Technically the wall isn't even an ally.
Also, I'm pretty sure the wall would still fall under this rule:
Allies who are paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats."Otherwise unable to act," is not a condition.
Wall is spending a full round action to hold up the ceiling.
Wall is spending a full round action to hold up the ceiling.Allies who are paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats.Technically a wall can't have any of those conditions, like wise a creature that is dead is immune to them as well.Technically the wall isn't even an ally.
Also, I'm pretty sure the wall would still fall under this rule:
Allies who are paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats."Otherwise unable to act," is not a condition.
I see we're returning to arguments of absurdity.
|
|
I see we're returning to arguments of absurdity.Wall is spending a full round action to hold up the ceiling.Allies who are paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats.Technically a wall can't have any of those conditions, like wise a creature that is dead is immune to them as well.Technically the wall isn't even an ally.
Also, I'm pretty sure the wall would still fall under this rule:
Allies who are paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats."Otherwise unable to act," is not a condition.
Returning too? The whole question is absurd, but that is where rules vs real world logic often don't make a lot of sense