Betrayer Feats....


Rules Questions


Is there any way to use a Betrayer Feat without your ally having the same feat?


Be an Inquisitor.


Ventnor wrote:
Be an Inquisitor.

But you can only be the "victim" then.


I got Ally Shield on my Holy Tactician paladin, so her teammates can hide behind her in combat =) Lawful Good betrayal at its finest!


VRMH wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Be an Inquisitor.
But you can only be the "victim" then.

But the Victim can't trigger this ability?


TheMonkeyFish wrote:
But the Victim can't trigger this ability?

Not the Betrayal feats, no.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Betrayal feats are designed for good characters and masochists, not evil characters who want to backstab their allies. They're very much misnamed.

Your best bet is to talk to your GM about disregarding the limitation that prevents you from using Teamwork feat sharing abilities to designate an ally as the victim. That restriction exists to prevent hurt feelings at the table when a supposed ally makes you eat an arrow in their place, but hopefully you and your group are mature enough that if you're playing a campaign that uses Betrayal feats, you're also capable of separating your personal feelings from what a player's evil character did to your character.


Ssalarn wrote:

Betrayal feats are designed for good characters and masochists, not evil characters who want to backstab their allies. They're very much misnamed.

Your best bet is to talk to your GM about disregarding the limitation that prevents you from using Teamwork feat sharing abilities to designate an ally as the victim. That restriction exists to prevent hurt feelings at the table when a supposed ally makes you eat an arrow in their place, but hopefully you and your group are mature enough that if you're playing a campaign that uses Betrayal feats, you're also capable of separating your personal feelings from what a player's evil character did to your character.

Well, they were designed for evil characters. But then bad characters needed permission which is just such a little goodie two shoes thing to do!

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

The Mortonator wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

Betrayal feats are designed for good characters and masochists, not evil characters who want to backstab their allies. They're very much misnamed.

Your best bet is to talk to your GM about disregarding the limitation that prevents you from using Teamwork feat sharing abilities to designate an ally as the victim. That restriction exists to prevent hurt feelings at the table when a supposed ally makes you eat an arrow in their place, but hopefully you and your group are mature enough that if you're playing a campaign that uses Betrayal feats, you're also capable of separating your personal feelings from what a player's evil character did to your character.

Well, they were designed for evil characters. But then bad characters needed permission which is just such a little goodie two shoes thing to do!

"Muahahahaha! I'm so evil, I'm going to dedicate time, training, and personal resources to allowing my minions to use me as a human shield! I'll be so selfless, those goody-goody adventurers will never see it coming! While I'm at it, I'm also going to donate to charity and open up an orphange to teach children how to be just as selfless as me! Muahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!"

The thing is, the bad guy who takes a Betrayal feat and shares it with the group can't ever be the Betrayer, even with the group's permission, unless you ignore the restriction. So, they may have been put in a book dedicated to evil characters, but they utterly fail as evil options.


Ssalarn wrote:
The Mortonator wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

Betrayal feats are designed for good characters and masochists, not evil characters who want to backstab their allies. They're very much misnamed.

Your best bet is to talk to your GM about disregarding the limitation that prevents you from using Teamwork feat sharing abilities to designate an ally as the victim. That restriction exists to prevent hurt feelings at the table when a supposed ally makes you eat an arrow in their place, but hopefully you and your group are mature enough that if you're playing a campaign that uses Betrayal feats, you're also capable of separating your personal feelings from what a player's evil character did to your character.

Well, they were designed for evil characters. But then bad characters needed permission which is just such a little goodie two shoes thing to do!

"Muahahahaha! I'm so evil, I'm going to dedicate time, training, and personal resources to allowing my minions to use me as a human shield! I'll be so selfless, those goody-goody adventurers will never see it coming! While I'm at it, I'm also going to donate to charity and open up an orphange to teach children how to be just as selfless as me! Muahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!"

The thing is, the bad guy who takes a Betrayal feat and shares it with the group can't ever be the Betrayer, even with the group's permission, unless you ignore the restriction. So, they may have been put in a book dedicated to evil characters, but they utterly fail as evil options.

Which is pretty much exactly what I said.

They were MADE for evil characters. But at some point in the design process the devs decided it would dick over your party too much to not be voluntary. Which is why despite being evil themed, flavored, roasted, and designed that little aspect means you can't really be evil about them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wouldn't the various archtypes that grant others the betrayal feats still work? While solo tactics only allows your be the abettor, A cavalier (Especially Order of the cockatrice) could use tactician to force it on others

Grand Lodge

Lady Melo wrote:
Wouldn't the various archtypes that grant others the betrayal feats still work? While solo tactics only allows your be the abettor, A cavalier (Especially Order of the cockatrice) could use tactician to force it on others

Nope.

Quote:
Characters with class abilities granting allies access to teamwork feats (such as cavaliers or inquisitors) can select these teamwork feats normally, but allies who are granted these feats can use the feats only as initiators, not as abettors.

Scarab Sages

Some of those feats would be really useful for non-evil characters if the party was very in-sync. You'd really need to plan out the party to get them to work right, but I love the Betrayal feats and would love them to be PFS legal.


Aw... Betrayer isnt PFS legal? So not only cant I be the betrayer, but I also cant even be the arbetor?

Scarab Sages

TheMonkeyFish wrote:
Aw... Betrayer isnt PFS legal? So not only cant I be the betrayer, but I also cant even be the arbetor?

Technically, it isn't they they specifically banned them, it's that the book they are in, Champions of Corruption, isn't mentioned at all in the additional resources. The assumption is that the lack of mention indicates that none of their rules are PFS legal. Though it could still be an oversight.


The benefits went from evil-cool to contrived when I saw that the abettor has to get the feat as well. It takes the fun out of it.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
The benefits went from evil-cool to contrived when I saw that the abettor has to get the feat as well. It takes the fun out of it.

Yeah, as previously discussed, they're Martyr feats, not Betrayal feats. Really there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed in PFS, other than a misleading designation that has nothing to do with their mechanical function.

Grand Lodge

Murdock Mudeater wrote:
TheMonkeyFish wrote:
Aw... Betrayer isnt PFS legal? So not only cant I be the betrayer, but I also cant even be the arbetor?
Technically, it isn't they they specifically banned them, it's that the book they are in, Champions of Corruption, isn't mentioned at all in the additional resources. The assumption is that the lack of mention indicates that none of their rules are PFS legal. Though it could still be an oversight.

Not an oversight. When asked about it (around the time the book came out) they said they weren't planning on sanctioning anything from Champions of Corruption.

Scarab Sages

Jeff Merola wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
TheMonkeyFish wrote:
Aw... Betrayer isnt PFS legal? So not only cant I be the betrayer, but I also cant even be the arbetor?
Technically, it isn't they they specifically banned them, it's that the book they are in, Champions of Corruption, isn't mentioned at all in the additional resources. The assumption is that the lack of mention indicates that none of their rules are PFS legal. Though it could still be an oversight.
Not an oversight. When asked about it (around the time the book came out) they said they weren't planning on sanctioning anything from Champions of Corruption.

Still seems like they should mention it in additional resources, if only to say they decided against it.

Grand Lodge

That would go against how the AR page is organized, though. If something isn't listed it's explicitly not allowed, so it would be odd to have an entry that was nothing but "Nothing from this book is allowed."

Scarab Sages

Jeff Merola wrote:
That would go against how the AR page is organized, though. If something isn't listed it's explicitly not allowed, so it would be odd to have an entry that was nothing but "Nothing from this book is allowed."

Which is a bit of a fault, in my opinion, as it leaves players unable to ascertain if things are missing rather than purposely omitted.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Betrayer Feats.... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.