I would love an official ruling on this but...
I have read a couple of threads on the subject but both were posted a few years ago so I was hoping there would be more information?
People either read this as "He can attack you without the bonus, negating the feat." Or
"He has the bonus ragardless, he can choose not to attack you this round but if he does he invokes the AoO."
My question is which is it? My gm has chosen the former and I have to say it makes the feat seam a bit lackluster if it won't count when it matters.
The later interpretation is the correct one.
If the enemy could merely choose not to take the bonus to avoid the effect of the feat it makes it a very terrible feat. As everyone would just choose never to take the bonus so that no one ever gets an extra attack.
No it's definitely the later interpretation.
But, it is worth noting that basically this should happen only once against intelligent opponents. You get them once by "lowering your guard" and helping a friend get an attack. They realize what you've done and avoid attacking the person who is feigning weakness.
Unless everyone in the party has the feat they can find someone else to attack.
I mean, it's already a pretty terrible feat because two people need to pick it up and be near the same person. Solo Tactics from an Inquisitor doesn't help, so only Cavalier-like abilities to grant teamwork feats to others help.
If your GM insist on his interpretation ask him if you can retrain the feat to something else since his interpretation makes the feat not useful.
I've never seen anyone imply that the opponent can ignore the bonus to negate the AoO. Shortly put, that's just wrong.
Don't mean to necro, but my GM just said the later because we were doing a PvP session.
Since we're already necro-ing, I'd like to point out that it's a great feat for Hunters, especially if you ride your companion. I've got a character who does that and it's AoO central whenever they're running around.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
And since we are already necroing, I might as well use this thread to continue another argument I was having with some other people. It's more appropriate here than it was there.
Claxon wrote: two people need to pick it up That's technically not true. I mean, yeah, it says
Broken Wing Gambit wrote: it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat. And it doesn't say "you and your allies."
But there is an FAQ about Allies.
FAQ wrote: 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." Within the context of the description of Broken Wing Gambit, it isn't nonsensical nor impossible.
Broken Wing Gambit make-sense test wrote: Benefit: Whenever you make a melee attack and hit your opponent, you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against you until the end of your next turn or until your opponent attacks you, whichever happens first. If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from [YOU AND] your allies who have this feat. There is nothing there that would make it so that you would have to be 2 people or have to be in 2 places at once or anything like that. You leave yourself open to attack, but it's a trap. It sure is a worse trap if you have allies that are in on it, too, but I don't see any actual rules that say it only works with allies.
There have been a lot of people that say that the simple fact that BWG is a Teamwork Feat means that counting as your own ally for Broken Wing Gambit must be nonsensical and impossible. But I haven't found anything in the rules that says you have to have allies with a Teamwork Feat in order to use it. The closest thing I found in the rules was this.
Ultimate Combat, Teamwork Feats wrote: 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. There's no rule there that says you need allies with your feat. All there is is a description of how most of these Feats go. There is nothing in this description of Teamwork Feats that justifies dismissing as nonsensical or impossible counting "your allies" as "you and your allies" in Broken Wing Gambit. And, as I have shown, there is nothing like that in the description of Broken Wing Gambit itself, either. So, where is it?
I think that most people are reading something into the rules regarding Teamwork Feats that just isn't there. In other words, the Emperor is naked.
Am I wrong? Is there some other rule somewhere else?
Of course, there is validity to the notion that you play a game a certain way, because that's the way the game is played. And any independent GM can make any ruling he wants. But Pathfinder Society Players are supposed to be able to play they way they want to as long as it is legal (and they aren't being jerks), and Pathfinder Society GMs are supposed to be bound by what the rules really say. If a GM is using non-rules to justify ruining a perfectly-legal character, then it is the GM who is being a jerk.
Also, it seems to me that maybe the situation is that almost everyone in PFS is interpreting the rules wrong, and if that is the case, maybe an erratum is needed.
I don't mind if you need an ally for the feat to work, but saying that the character can ignore the bonus just seems wrong to me. It's seems like meta-gaming. My GM said that since it was a PVP session and the person I was fighting was a character I had been fighting with for a while so he'd know about the feat. But he still attacked me after the effect had been applied! It just doesn't seem fair.
Scott, if you always count as tour own ally for team work feats, then it wouldn't say "In most cases" it would say "In no case whatsoever"
Which is the only proof needed to show you're incorrect.
I think that you would actually need an ally to get the rest to work properly.
The opponent triggers AoO because he is focused on you and your teammates were prepared for it. It doesn't make sense to me that you would get the jump on him too.... he's focused on you.
As for the other issue,
The "if the opponent attacks with that bonus" line is basically designating that it only works on the first attack against you, not every attack that round.
Ultimate Combat, Teamwork Feats wrote: 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. Telephone calls wrote: Telephone calls are a wondrous thing, but they only function under specific circumstances. In most cases, a call requires a friend who also possesses a phone to be connected to a landline. Telephone calls are not possible if the listed conditions are not met. Maybe that 'in most cases' doesn't refer to the 'ally who also possesses the feat' part of the sentence? Just maybe.
Oh, and I did consider not posting. But it seems as if I'm a weaker person than I thought.
That FAQ answer about being your ally makes sense... I mean to cast spells, bard songs, etc.
But teamwork is team work. And the FAQ is clear that in some cases it IS impossible to be your own ally. Teamwork being that case.
Cavall wrote: Scott, if you always count as tour own ally for team work feats, then it wouldn't say "In most cases" it would say "In no case whatsoever"
Which is the only proof needed to show you're incorrect.
Uh, no.
Even in the case of Broken Wing Gambit, there is a tremendous benefit to having multiple allies with this Feat. If any team member with this feat is attacked, then every member gets an attack of opportunity.
Just because it works when you are alone doesn't make it not a Teamwork Feat.
But the fact that it says "in most cases" does mean that the description of Teamwork Feats does not seem to have any blanket requirement that you have allies with the Feat.
It's an interesting argument, though: analyze each Teamwork Feat on a case-by-case basis. If the majority fail to require allies with the Feat with Battlefield positioning, then _________?
Cavall wrote: That FAQ answer about being your ally makes sense... I mean to cast spells, bard songs, etc.
But teamwork is team work. And the FAQ is clear that in some cases it IS impossible to be your own ally. Teamwork being that case.
But as I demonstrated, Broken Wing Gambit does work much better when you have Teammates that have the Feat even conceding that it works when you are alone: in the case that it works when you are alone doesn't make it not a Teamwork Feat.
The FAQ doesn't say that it's just about spells and songs. Why do you say it? Where in the rules does it say that this FAQ only refer to spells and songs?
I don't see where in the rules it says that Teamwork Feats is one of those cases. I'm asking you to find it in the rules.
Mallecks wrote: I think that you would actually need an ally to get the rest to work properly.
The opponent triggers AoO because he is focused on you and your teammates were prepared for it. It doesn't make sense to me that you would get the jump on him too.... he's focused on you.
Now you are raising a second issue, or maybe you are just making me think of one. Even if you did require an ally to use Broken Wing Gambit, "your allies" still might mean "you and your allies." meaning that if you were attacked, you and your allies that have this feat would get an attack of opportunity. For this, too, I don't see where the rules prevent this.
Set aside the big question. Let's say you and 4 allies have Broken Wing Gambit. You hit someone. You give the +2. They attack you. The Feat says "your allies" get an Attack of Opportunity. And the FAQ says you also count as your own ally. Why shouldn't you get an Attack of Opportunity, too? As far as I can tell, the rules say you should.
Mallecks wrote: The "if the opponent attacks with that bonus" line is basically designating that it only works on the first attack against you, not every attack that round. That is actually an issue I don't think has been brought up.
Broken Wing Gambit wrote: grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against you until the end of your next turn or until your opponent attacks you, whichever happens first. That does sound like a duration to me, too. That would mean that the victim only gets 1 Attack with a +2/ Team member that uses the Feat, and that each Team Member only gets 1 attack per use of the +2. It would be rather catastrophic if the poor fellow used Whirlwind Attack...
Wonderstell wrote: I did consider not posting. But it seems as if I'm a weaker person than I thought. I kind of thought it was a shame that we weren't continuing our debate publicly, but in the thread we were debating in earlier, the OP really didn't want us there, anymore. I'm glad to continue our debate in an appropriate public forum.
Wonderstell wrote: Ultimate Combat, Teamwork Feats wrote: 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. Telephone calls wrote: Telephone calls are a wondrous thing, but they only function under specific circumstances. In most cases, a call requires a friend who also possesses a phone to be connected to a landline. Telephone calls are not possible if the listed conditions are not met. Maybe that 'in most cases' doesn't refer to the 'ally who also possesses the feat' part of the sentence? Just maybe. Also, you're the only one I know who is making a grammatical argument, making your argument something of a collector's item, and I do so want the whole set!
In the counter example you are making, "in most cases" really seems to me to refer to both posessing a phone and for that phone to be connected to a landline. At least, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't. In most cases, you have to possess the phone. If you are cooking, and your hands are full, and somebody else places the the receiver to your ear and says, "Say hi to my girlfriend!" and you say, "Hi Bob's girlfriend!" you are using a phone when you are not in possession of it, even though in most cases, you would be. There was a time when in most cases the phone would be a land line, which is no longer the case. But that isn't the point. My point is that "In most cases" can totally refer either to phone possession or line-landedness.
But remember that what any grammatical ambiguities here really means is that the description of Teamwork Feats in Ultimate Combat cannot be used as justification for dismissing the FAQ declaring that "your ally" means (almost always) "you and your ally." And BWG itself doesn't make it nonsensical nor impossible, either.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You don't count as your own ally for Teamwork Feats. The whole point is that you're teaming up with someone. If you want to provoke yourself with BWG, you need to have Solo Tactics and Paired Opportunists.
EDIT: Also, take a look at the Combat Trick for BWG: Combat Trick wrote: When an opponent with the +2 bonus on attack rolls granted by this feat attacks you, you can spend 5 stamina points to have that attack provoke an attack of opportunity from you also. Now why would that Combat Trick exist if you counted as your own ally for this feat?
That's a great point, Kristal. I think that is pretty much conclusive evidence Scott is incorrect.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Cavall wrote: Scott, if you always count as tour own ally for team work feats, then it wouldn't say "In most cases" it would say "In no case whatsoever"
Which is the only proof needed to show you're incorrect.
Uh, no.
Uh yes.
Quote:
But the fact that it says "in most cases" does mean that the description of Teamwork Feats does not seem to have any blanket requirement that you have allies with the Feat.
Solo tactics. One case. Therefore most cases you do, solo tactics you may not.
As Kristal has shown, the feat itself has a combat trick that states the original feat needs a team mate.
The Combat Trick is from Pathfinder Unchained and not from Ultimate Combat like the feat. So it is not a proof for the intention of the feat.
You do count as your own ally even for Teamwork feats. You count as your own ally in general, and I am not aware of a specific rule for Teamwork feats, which overrules this.
Many Teamwork feats speak about that you need an ally adjacent, which you are not. But you are still your own ally, and thus you can use Broken Wing Gambit alone.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: In the counter example you are making, "in most cases" really seems to me to refer to both posessing a phone and for that phone to be connected to a landline. At least, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't. In most cases, you have to possess the phone. If you are cooking, and your hands are full, and somebody else places the the receiver to your ear and says, "Say hi to my girlfriend!" and you say, "Hi Bob's girlfriend!" you are using a phone when you are not in possession of it, even though in most cases, you would be. There was a time when in most cases the phone would be a land line, which is no longer the case. But that isn't the point. My point is that "In most cases" can totally refer either to phone possession or line-landedness. The point I'm trying to make is that the 'subject' of the sentence is clearly implicit, so the 'in most cases' argument is built on the basis that we disregard the intention of the authors.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: But remember that what any grammatical ambiguities here really means is that the description of Teamwork Feats in Ultimate Combat cannot be used as justification for dismissing the FAQ declaring that "your ally" means (almost always) "you and your ally." And BWG itself doesn't make it nonsensical nor impossible, either. The opposite is true, too. Since your argument only is remotely feasible if you can prove that your way of reading the sentence is the correct one.
**************
Teamwork Feats (brackets added) wrote: 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. Handshakes wrote: Handshakes are considered proper etiquette, but only under specific circumstances. In most cases, handshakes require a [person with a hand] to be positioned carefully in front of you. Handshakes may offend if the listed conditions are not met. Since you wouldn't humor the implied meaning of the previous sentence, here's another one. I see no way one could twist the implied meaning of this sentence, but I'll look forward to you surprising me.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Even in the case of Broken Wing Gambit, there is a tremendous benefit to having multiple allies with this Feat. If any team member with this feat is attacked, then every member gets an attack of opportunity.
Just because it works when you are alone doesn't make it not a Teamwork Feat.
/.../
But as I demonstrated, Broken Wing Gambit does work much better when you have Teammates that have the Feat even conceding that it works when you are alone: in the case that it works when you are alone doesn't make it not a Teamwork Feat.
Yes, and that would be a reasonable explanation as to why it's called a "teamwork" feat. But what about feats that are clearly about teamwork, but aren't designated as "teamwork feats"?
What sets apart Butterfly's Sting from Broken Wing Gambit? Butterfly's Sting is all about granting an advantage to allies, but it has no language with the restriction that your allies need the feat to benefit from it.
And that's why it's not a "teamwork feat". Because your allies doesn't need the feat to benefit.
Just my opinion but I see it this way:
There are qualifications to triggering the effect of this feat.
1: Did the opponent attack you?
If YES, move to 2.
2: An AoO is provoked for all allies who have this feat.
Are you by the rules your own ally? Yes. Do you have the feat? Yes. Then you get the attack.
When I read this feat, honestly I think of the Golden Compass(Book or Movie) when the character Iorek uses a very similar tactic to take out what looked to be a superior foe. He goad the foe into being over confident and took a couple good hits to set up a counter. That is essentially what this does.
Alternately Muhammad Ali was famous for using the "Rope-a-Dope" where he would take a bit of punishment to lure his opponent into a position where he would get to make a good counter attack, usually catching the opponent off guard and putting them down.
Kristal Moonhand wrote: You don't count as your own ally for Teamwork Feats. The whole point is that you're teaming up with someone. Nothing I am saying contradicts that.
I wrote: Broken Wing Gambit does work much better when you have Teammates that have the Feat even conceding that it works when you are alone: in the case that it works when you are alone doesn't make it not a Teamwork Feat. Kristal Moonhand wrote: EDIT: Also, take a look at the Combat Trick for BWG: Combat Trick wrote: When an opponent with the +2 bonus on attack rolls granted by this feat attacks you, you can spend 5 stamina points to have that attack provoke an attack of opportunity from you also. Now why would that Combat Trick exist if you counted as your own ally for this feat? The Combat Tricks section of Pathfinder Unchained is not PFS legal, and strict RAW interpretaion of the rule only is nececessary for PFS. In any other context, I'd just ask the GM and design my character accordingly.
Mark Seifter, the author of your evidence, wrote this with a flawed understanding of the rules.
Mark Seifter wrote: "...these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat" He leaves out a crucial piece of the evidence.
Teamwork Feats wrote: In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat (Look Wonder, no period!)
"In most cases" makes this sentence not a blanket rule that creates a demanding condition on Broken Wing Gambit. Mark was reading meaning into Teamwork Feats that was not actually in the source material based on an imperfect memory or imprecise analysis of what the rules actually say. This is probably one of the reasons why the Combat Trick rules are not PFS legal in the first place.
Cavall wrote: I think that is pretty much conclusive evidence Scott is incorrect. No, but it is evidence that that is they way the writers meant for Teamwork Feats to work, but they failed to word their intentions strongly enough to make their intentions actual rules. That is part of the reason why I am re-starting this debate. I am calling for a clarification or an erratum.
Kristal Moonhand wrote: If you want to provoke yourself with BWG, you need to have Solo Tactics and Paired Opportunists. I actually do have a character build that does that, but the reason I have him taking PO is to get Attacks of Opportunity off of Greater Bull Rush. Still, taking PO sooner than later is solid advice. It had previously been my intention to take Combat Reflexes simultaneously with BWG, but as Mallecks pointed out, that +2 only applies to 1 attack, and that means my character wouldn't benefit from CR at that stage anyway.
It certainly appears that what I'm saying is controversial. This is a problematic disconnect between what the rules actually say and the game designers meant to say. That is a recipe for bitter arguments at Pathfinder Society tables. Again, this is why I am re-starting this debate. I think there should be some sort of clarification or erratum.
Mark Seifter and all of you at the Pathfinder Design Team, I call upon you to acknowledge that the rules do indeed allow you to use Broken Wing Gambit without allies or officially change the rules so that we can't.
proposed erratum wrote: In most cases, These feats require an ally who also possesses the feat
Wonderstell,
I'm not trying to snub you. I intend to give your arguments proper attention soon.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Wonderstell,
I'm not trying to snub you. I intend to give your arguments proper attention soon.
Take your time. I was already oddly content when you quoted everything correctly in your first post, so there's always that.
Combat Tricks are part of the Stamina rules. Them being PFS legal has nothing to do with the fact that you still don't count as your own ally for teamwork feats. The trick simply adds to the pile of evidence, since you insist on ignoring the FAQ that says (if I may paraphrase for simplicity) "You count as your own ally except when it would be stupid." And this is really, really stupid.
You want a teamwork feat that doesn't require an ally have it for a benefit? Here's one, Thuvian Grenadier. If no one else has the feat, you only get to exclude one creature from splash damage. Anyone who does have the feat automatically ignores splash and can toss missed weapons around. Here's another, Special Delivery. The ally only needs to have Bonded Mind, they don't need Special Delivery for you to use it. Those are the kinds of exceptions the "In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat" line is referring to. Not Broken Wing Gambit.
Wonderstell wrote: Maybe that 'in most cases' doesn't refer to the 'ally who also possesses the feat' part of the sentence? Just maybe.... The point I'm trying to make is that the 'subject' of the sentence is clearly implicit, so the 'in most cases' argument is built on the basis that we disregard the intention of the authors. The subject of the sentence is "These Feats."
Teamwork Feats wrote: In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield. The verb is "require." The thing that requires is "feats." "feats" is the subject. "These" is an adjective modifying "feats."
"In most cases" is a prepositional phrase being used as an adverb to modify "require." It isn't an in-most-cases feat; it's in an in-most-cases requirement, or rather how do the feats require? They require in most cases.
"ally" is the direct object. What do these feats require? They require an ally.
What is "who also possesses the feat"? A subordinate clause. What does it modify? Well, ally. What kind of ally is it required? An ally who also possesses the feat, that's what kind. "to be positioned" is an infinitive phrase being used as an adjective to modify ally. What kind of ally? An ally to be positioned. "on the battlefield is a prepositional phrase being used as an adverb to modify "to be positioned."
Wonderstell, I disagree with you. Both "who also possesses the feat" and "to be positioned" independently modify "ally." "In most cases" is a prepositional phrase being used as an adverb to modify "requires," the verb of the sentence.
The entire object of the sentence, our ally, is only required in most cases. That means it is not a rule that makes it nonsensical nor impossible for "your ally" in Broken Wing Gambit to mean "you and your ally." Failing further evidence, I don't see how it doesn't.
Kristal Moonhand wrote: You don't count as your own ally for Teamwork Feats. Kristal Moonhand wrote: pointed out that Combat Trick] When an opponent with the +2 bonus on attack rolls granted by this feat attacks you, you can spend 5 stamina points to have that attack provoke an attack of opportunity from you also. Kristal Moonhand wrote: Now why would that Combat Trick exist if you counted as your own ally for this feat? Now, that is further evidence, but it is failing further evidence.
Kristal Moonhand wrote: Combat Tricks are part of the Stamina rules. Both Combat Tricks and the Stamina rules they are a part of are an alternative rule set. They are not part of the official rules. They are not allowed in Pathfinder Society. A GM might adopt these alternative rules just like he might adopt Armor as DR, 3rd party published materials, or any of a variety of other things.
It does imply an intent to the rules, and therefore a disconnect between the intent and the actual. That's why I re-opened this debate.
It's not a debate, you're just wrong and are trying to flim-flam people into believing you're right.
Hey, what about Ambush Squad? You are in your own square and you are your own ally, so you should get a move and a standard, right?
Same for any of the ones that grant bonuses for being adjacent. Why would they even be labelled teamwork feats? They will always work for one creature, no need to even label it a teamwork feat.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I wasn't at my computer earlier, so I didn't want to go through a lot of examples, but I am now so here we go...
Allied Spellcaster: Now, this one is just awesome. You don't just get the normal +2 competence to bypass SR, you actually get the improved +4 AND +1 caster level because your ally (yourself) is casting the same spell as you are! What an oversight!
Ally Shield: Throw yourself infront of an attack aimed at you and force the attacker to make a new attack roll!
Amplified Rage: You are raging and adjacent to a raging ally(you are in your own squarE). Free +4 to your morale bonus! No allies needed!
Back to Back: You are adjacent to yourself, so you get +2 AC.
Elemental Commixture: Standard action to ready an action of to cast the Primary spell when your "ally" (yourself) casts the other component. Then cast the secondary spell quickened and do both!
Escape Route: This one is pretty good. You never provoke off of movement!
Lookout: In a different thread about sniping, I think it was determined that a sniper couldn't get a full round action to properly snipe with the action economy in the surprise round. With Lookout, they would be able to! Other ambushing characters can even make full attacks. A lot easier to get it done when it's just you. Grab a level in Sohei monk and get a full-round action before every combat. Depending on how this guys, you might be able to double flurry someone before they even move.
Overwhelm: Free flanking against huge creatures
Precise Strike: Combine Overwhelm and Precise strike for free precision damage against the huge creatures.
Shake it Off: This feat now always grants +1 more, because people probably weren't counting themselves.
Stick Together: Move again wherever you want as an immediate action! You are always adjacent to yourself!
Wall of Flesh: Be considered a bigger creature for free.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
@Scott Wilhelm
There's no RAI to support your claim, as we have designer input telling you off.
There's no RAW supporting your claim, since it's only your opinion that "it makes sense" to be treated as your own ally for teamwork feats.
There's no semblance of game balance in what you propose is true. At all.
"Hit an enemy and give it a minor buff for one attack, to gain an AoO when they attack you."
That's the end result of a 3-4 feat chain, not one feat without any kind of check.
I absolutely refuse to believe even for a second that you even remotely think this is how the feat was supposed to work.
You're not daft, just arrogant enough to claim designers of the game don't know the rules they quote.
Just too proud to ever admit that you're wrong on an anonymous message board for pathfinder.
You said you demanded me to speak to you as if you were giving your best advice in good faith according to what the rules say. Well, You're not.
As soon as you get cornered, you either go off on a tangent for 500 words, and pretend that the questions have been answered. Or act insulted and appeal to our sense of civility.
Consider your backwater politician ways outdated because you're not convincing anyone here that didn't already want it to be true.
****
Mark Seifter's respone and the Combat Trick should be everything that you could ever need to realize that you're wrong. So just shut up, sit down, and write an apology to all new players you're lying to.
Broken Wing Gambit wrote: You feign weakness, making yourself a tempting and distracting target. A distracting target. Distracting the enemy from what? Not your self, at least.
Regardless of the stamina system being optional, the fact it changes a system already in place for broken wing gambit by allowing you to also be part of the AoO is proof the original feat does not and had not ever considered you to be part of the AoO is not optional.
It's like reading a feat that allowed standard action charge and saying that it's not proof you couldn't have done that anyways.
The ONLY thing the combat system allowed you to do by being an unchained OPTION is doing the thing you're saying it does anyways. Which is proof it doesn't.
If you don't like the option of the unchained rule it doesn't change you still not being able to do it.
You're wrong Scott and have been wrong about it for years. And Marks response (which is what we've been saying all along) and the combat system proving you need an optional system to even try it should be enough to put this nail in an already buried coffin. We are throwing nails at a coffin already in the ground.
Case closed and shut
Mallecks wrote: Hey, what about Ambush Squad? You are in your own square and you are your own ally, so you should get a move and a standard, right?
Same for any of the ones that grant bonuses for being adjacent. Why would they even be labelled teamwork feats? They will always work for one creature, no need to even label it a teamwork feat.
You're throwing a lot of stuff at me. And I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
Wonderstell wrote: There's no semblance of game balance in what you propose is true. At all. Is this what you are trying to say? That I have discovered an oversight in the rules that throws off game balance?
If you are right, that what I'm saying throws off game balance, that doesn't make me wrong. That means I've discovered a problem with the rules, and I'm calling attention to it so that it can be fixed.
Wonderstell wrote: There's no RAI to support your claim. I don't think it is usually useful to speculate about what the designers intended, but I pretty much agree that it is probable that the PDT intended and believed that Teamwork Feats require allies with the Feat. But that requirement is just not in the description of Teamwork Feats in language anything like strong enough to be considered a rule.
The problem with this is that we are paying customers. We pay them. They work for us. If they want our money, then they owe us a reliable product. We are not responsible for what they meant to say. They are responsible for what they did say.
And boys and girls, try to remember that I didn't create any problems, here. Perhaps I found one.
Cavall wrote: Regardless of the stamina system being optional, the fact it changes a system already in place for broken wing gambit by allowing you to also be part of the AoO is proof the original feat does not and had not ever considered you to be part of the AoO is not optional.
It's like reading a feat that allowed standard action charge and saying that it's not proof you couldn't have done that anyways.
No, optional rule systems don't change the existing rules. Admittedly, these optional rules were written with an understanding of how the rules work that is different from how I'm saying they work. But I'm not making up what the rules say. I'm reporting on what the rules say.
I have a counter example for you. Do you remember the Potion Glutton Feat? It used to allow you to drink any potable as a Swift Action. And it had a Normal section, too. It said that normally, drinking a potion was a Move Action. Well, that actually was an official feat part of the official rules, and it has always been Pathfinder Society Legal. And nobody seriously considered that Normal section of the Feat description to represent an actual update to the rules. Nobody I know of, that is. Did you?
Declaring that Potion Glutton updated the rules by changing the normal act of drinking a potion from a Standard Action to a Move Action is more compelling than Combat Tricks changing Broken Wing Gambit. At least Potion Glutton was an official rule.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Cavall wrote: Regardless of the stamina system being optional, the fact it changes a system already in place for broken wing gambit by allowing you to also be part of the AoO is proof the original feat does not and had not ever considered you to be part of the AoO is not optional.
It's like reading a feat that allowed standard action charge and saying that it's not proof you couldn't have done that anyways.
No, optional rule systems don't change the existing rules. Admittedly, these optional rules were written with an understanding of how the rules work that is different from how I'm saying they work. But I'm not making up what the rules say. I'm reporting on what the rules say.
I have a counter example for you. Do you remember the Potion Glutton Feat? It used to allow you to drink any potable as a Swift Action. And it had a Normal section, too. It said that normally, drinking a potion was a Move Action. Well, that actually was an official feat part of the official rules, and it has always been Pathfinder Society Legal. And nobody seriously considered that Normal section of the Feat description to represent an actual update to the rules. Nobody I know of, that is. Did you?
Declaring that Potion Glutton updated the rules by changing the normal act of drinking a potion from a Standard Action to a Move Action is more compelling than Combat Tricks changing Broken Wing Gambit. At least Potion Glutton was an official rule. Pretty sure there's a difference between PFS legal and official. How are the combat tricks not official rules? They're not a third-party set of rules. They were made by Paizo. Just because something's optional, doesn't mean it's not official.
Once again, it's not that it's an optional rulr.
It's that it's an optional rule that's telling you specifically how the original rule works.
And that's the part to focus on.
Quote: Admittedly, these optional rules were written with an understanding of how the rules work that is different from how I'm saying they work. Yes. That's called you being wrong.
Do I remember potion glutton? I do. I also remember it being errata. I also remember the reason for the errata being clear, and that reason being the core rules were counter to it. That isn't the case here, as Mark has stated teamwork feats DO require teammates.
So we have
1. Feats that state they are teamwork, team defined as more than 1. (Scott thinks I in Team)
2. Teamwork feats themselves as being defined as almost always needing more than one. (Scott defines almost always as never ever)
3. Someone that works with Paizo saying they require more than one (Scott refuses to read Marks own words as valid)
4. An actual published rules set saying they normally require more than one. (Scott thinks that this is somehow a typo, which would be impossible)
BROKEN WING GAMBIT REQUIRES MORE THAN ONE.
And the really sad thing is that of they were to come into this thread to confirm This, Scott would claim this as a victory because his way of thinking forced them to reevaluate the while thing to change the system. Klar armour spikes typo all over again where in his reality there's no chance he can be wrong.
It's not the case.
Scott is wrong. 100%. And on no point is he valid for this rule. His only defense is to bring up things that were already errata and say "remember this rule before errata?"
BROKEN WING GAMBIT REQUIRES MORE THAN ONE
Cavall wrote: Once again, it's not that it's an optional rulr. Yes, it is. The rule system is optional. The understanding that the rules option is based on is also optional.
Cavall wrote: potion glutton... the reason for the errata being... being the core rules were counter to it. That isn't the case here Yes, it is. The Combat Trick for Broken Wing Gambit is counter to the core rules.
Cavall wrote: Mark has stated teamwork feats DO require teammates. Mark has not officially changed the Core Rules. Mark demonstrated his understanding of the rules is flawed.
Mark Seifter is a designer, so his opinion is better evidence than my opinion is. But my opinion is not being offered as evidence at all! My opinion is based on evidence. My opinion is based on what the rules really say. Mark's isn't.
Wonderstell wrote: You... claim designers of the game don't know the rules they quote. I'm making an extraordinary claim, but I have extraordinary evidence.
Mark Seifter quoting the rules wrote: "...these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat" what Teamwork Feats really wrote: In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat This is not a rule that says you need allies to take your Teamwork Feats for you to use them. Mark clearly thinks it is, but it isn't. He can change the rules to make it so, but he hasn't. He created on an optional set of rules based on his understanding, but there's nothing here to say that his understanding is any less optional than his optional rules.
Cavall wrote: Scott is wrong. 100%. And on no point is he valid for this rule. His only defense is to bring up things that were already errata and say "remember this rule before errata?" My defense is what the rules say. If you could demonstrate with the rules that I'm am wrong, I would publicly admit to it. I wouldn't go all CAPS LOCK and throw out personal remarks. In my opinion, that stuff amounts to a pretty graceless way of admitting your wrong.
So we have
1. The Broken Wing Gambit feat that says, "it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat."
2. And we have the Paizo FAQ that says, "You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible."
3. That calls for a test. Is it nonsensical or impossible in BWG? Let's look: "it provokes attacks of opportunity from [you and] your allies who have this feat." That's not nonsensical nor impossible.
4. We have people who say that the fact that BWG is a Teamwork Feat makes it nonsensical and impossible. But there is nothing found in the rules to justify that.
4a: There is a statement in the description of Teamwork Feats that says they mostly require allies to take your Teamwork Feat, too. But no rule that says you have to have with all Teamwork feats. There is no justification in either the description of Teamwork Feats nor in the description of Broken Wing Gambit that justifies ignoring the Paizo FAQ.
4b: There is a optional rule that you can play it that way.
So, it's clearly controversial. It's probably not what the PDT wanted, but someone that takes Broken Wing Gambit and claims his Attacks of Opportunity without allies is apparently technically correct to do so.
And technically correct is the best kind of correct!
You have to actually be correct to be "technically correct". How do I flag someone for being unbelievably obtuse? Any time a teamwork feat says "your allies" it doesn't mean "you and your allies". THAT FAQ DOES NOT APPLY TO EVERYTHING. And it definitely doesn't apply to teamwork feats. I cannot believe you are still here spouting nonsense after being told, point blank, from a developer, that BWG doesn't work solo.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
So basically this boils down to
1. "this applies unless it's obvious it doesn't" meaning "This always applies if I want it to."
2. "In most cases this doesn't apply at all" means "this always applies if I want it to"
3. "Here is an option to alter something that doesn't normally apply" becomes "it's an option therefore disregard the fact it clarifies what it applies to because I disregard it"
4. "I work for this company you're wrong, it doesn't apply" is responded to with "I can't be wrong even by the company who wrote the book because I'm misquoting the book in a way that I alone perceive as right by the company that wrote the book"
And lastly "Here is everything that contradicts me" becomes "nothing contradicts me."
It's like talking to Sheldon Cooper without the laugh track to tell us it's supposed to be funny.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
"The rules don't say that I can't..."
Never a way to read the rules.
"The rules have been defined that I can't but I understand the rules better than those that make the rules"
The worst way to read rules
thaX wrote: "The rules don't say that I can't..."
Never a way to read the rules.
Oh, I think I disagree with you philosophically, here. Pathfinder is a fantasy roleplaying game. It is a game with no object and no end: you are collaborating with other players and a referee to tell a cool story together. You precisely are suppose to be able to do whatever you want within the context of the game and the rules. If the rules don't say you can't, then you totally can!
Whether or not you should is a different matter. If, as I believe you are suggesting, that what the rules say is creating a situation where players are empowered to do things they shouldn't, then they should change the rules.
Mallecks wrote: Scott, please provide the rule that says I don't start the game with a Ring of Three Wishes. Really?
Starting Equipment wrote: Each character begins play with a number of gold pieces that he can spend on weapons, armor, and other equipment. As a character adventures, he accumulates more wealth that can be spent on better gear and magic items. Table: Starting Character Wealth lists the starting gold piece values by class. In addition, each character begins play with an outfit worth 10 gp or less. For characters above 1st level, see Table: Character Wealth by Level. How much each character gets to start with is on a table which doesn't cut and past properly, so follow the link.
Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers start out with the most, 175gp on average. A ring of 3 Wishes has a listed market price of 120,000gp.
Plus there are rules regarding availability of magic items based on community size. I'm not very familiar with those rules.
Mallecks, I was really hoping you had a real point to make. On you last post, you gave us a big list of Teamwork Feats. You seemed to be building to some kind of thesis. I was asking you for clarification.
And now you come up with this? Was there really no point to all those Feats you linked to? Do you really have no real arguments to make?
I'm disappointed.
The real truth of it players are using the system to play the game, and you're using the system to play the system. Even to the point you're willing to say the system itself is wrong in order to be "right".
If "most" teamwork feats need someone and you need to be told specifically that broken wing gambit falls into that "most" category, then the combat stamina system for the feat defines the feat as falling into that category, as does Mark.
But you're so unwilling to be wrong you're missing the fact that it IS defining that this feat is in fact being defined as falling into that category.
It is being DEFINED as falling into the category you say you need to be defined. And you say you need to be told by the rules that it does. So accept it. Accept it does and you've been wrong for years and move on.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Mallecks wrote: Scott, please provide the rule that says I don't start the game with a Ring of Three Wishes. Really?
Starting Equipment wrote: Each character begins play with a number of gold pieces that he can spend on weapons, armor, and other equipment. As a character adventures, he accumulates more wealth that can be spent on better gear and magic items. Table: Starting Character Wealth lists the starting gold piece values by class. In addition, each character begins play with an outfit worth 10 gp or less. For characters above 1st level, see Table: Character Wealth by Level. How much each character gets to start with is on a table which doesn't cut and past properly, so follow the link.
Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers start out with the most, 175gp on average. A ring of 3 Wishes has a listed market price of 120,000gp.
Plus there are rules regarding availability of magic items based on community size. I'm not very familiar with those rules.
Mallecks, I was really hoping you had a real point to make. On you last post, you gave us a big list of Teamwork Feats. You seemed to be building to some kind of thesis. I was asking you for clarification.
And now you come up with this? Was there really no point to all those Feats you linked to? Do you really have no real arguments to make?
I'm disappointed. Oh, it's a worhtless ring of three wishes that costs 0 GP but still have three wishes in it.
Cavall wrote: The real truth of it players are using the system to play the game, and you're using the system to play the system. Even to the point you're willing to say the system itself is wrong in order to be "right". Cavall, my playing style is not the topic of this discussion. My person is not being offered as evidence. Attacking my person does nothing to diminish the truth I am reporting on.
Mallecks wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Mallecks wrote: Scott, please provide the rule that says I don't start the game with a Ring of Three Wishes. Really?
Starting Equipment wrote: Each character begins play with a number of gold pieces that he can spend on weapons, armor, and other equipment. As a character adventures, he accumulates more wealth that can be spent on better gear and magic items. Table: Starting Character Wealth lists the starting gold piece values by class. In addition, each character begins play with an outfit worth 10 gp or less. For characters above 1st level, see Table: Character Wealth by Level. How much each character gets to start with is on a table which doesn't cut and past properly, so follow the link.
Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers start out with the most, 175gp on average. A ring of 3 Wishes has a listed market price of 120,000gp.
Plus there are rules regarding availability of magic items based on community size. I'm not very familiar with those rules.
Mallecks, I was really hoping you had a real point to make. On you last post, you gave us a big list of Teamwork Feats. You seemed to be building to some kind of thesis. I was asking you for clarification.
And now you come up with this? Was there really no point to all those Feats you linked to? Do you really have no real arguments to make?
I'm disappointed. Oh, it's a worhtless ring of three wishes that costs 0 GP but still have three wishes in it. Mallecks, any rule you want to make up to play with in your own campaign, go to it, and God bless. It might be fun, and I hope you do have fun.
I'm using this thread to discuss what the published rules of this game say and what they mean to the Pathfinder game and the PFS community.
Honestly, that stuff you were on about Ambush Squad, Wall of Flesh, Stick Together: that seemed like good stuff. You gave me the feeling that you had something real to say. But I do want more clarification from you before I start analyzing each and every little one, because the argument lacks direction, and if I try to rebut what you are trying to say, without knowing what you are trying to say, my rebuttal will lack direction, too.
Would you please expand on what you were getting at when you mentioned all those Teamwork Feats?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Not attacking your person just your false perception of how things are. You're wrong about the rules and I've shown conclusively how with 0% evidence you can now present as being factual anymore.
It is being DEFINED as falling into the category you say you need to be defined.
You have no evidence or truth that counters this. Therefore you're wrong.
If you perceive being wrong as an attack on your person, that's your issue. Not the rules forums. Youll have to do something about that on your own accord. But you're acceptance and admission that your playing style is exactly what I said it is could be a start on doing so.
However as this is a rules forum we leave it simply as "your evidence is flawed, incorrect and defined by the game itself as being so."
How you deal with that is your own issue. But that doesn't make it an attack on your person, just a full out assault on how wrong you are. Which is fine, as this is a rules forum. And you want things defined by the rules.
|
