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.
Except for the optional rules provided show you're wrong. Optional rules don't use an optional understanding of the rules that regard rules that are not optional. How BWG works exists independently of the optional rules and is unchanged. The optional rules allow you to modify the ability to work how you want it to if you expend resources.
In this way, the "exception" proves the rule. And that is plenty enough evidence, even though there is more.
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?
The list of teamwork feats was just to show that if you all "yourself" to count as an ally for all teamwork feats, then there isn't a need to call many of them teamwork feats. They 100% work by themselves in every instance without an ally requirement, because you fulfill the ally requirement.
When adjacent to an ally with this feat, you’re considered one size category larger for determining CMD and the way combat maneuvers and abilities affect you.
You are your own ally and you are always adjacent to yourself.
Whenever you are adjacent to an ally who also has this feat, you receive a +2 competence bonus on level checks made to overcome spell resistance. If your ally has the same spell prepared (or known with a slot available if they are spontaneous spellcasters), this bonus increases to +4 and you receive a +1 bonus to the caster level for all level-dependent variables, such as duration, range, and effect.
This one is egregious, as you are not only ALWAYS getting the benefit of the teamwork feat, you are ALWAYS getting the improved part of it that has harsher requirements.
Because you are your own ally, you are always adjacent to yourself, and you are casting the same spell that you are casting.
However, this is more of an appeal to the RAI. Clearly, you know it isn't intended. They are called teamwork feats. The FAQ answer fueling this is:
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."
To everyone else, it doesn't make sense for someone to count as their own ally when using a Teamwork feat.
Can you explain how it makes sense that feats that require "teamwork" can be performed by a single individual?
And, by the way...
Yes, it is. The rule system is optional. The understanding that the rules option is based on is also optional.
I do not agree with this.
The way that BWG works exists independently of those optional rules. Whether or not those optional rules exist or are used, BWG always works the same way.
The optional rules provides a way to modify the way BWG normally works. That modification is to work the way you want it to work normally at the cost of resources.
Scott Wilhelm: I think BWG allows the character with the feat to get AoOs against the target of the feat.
Paizo: If you use optional rules, then BWG can allow the character with the feat to get AoOs against the target of the feat (if you expend additional resources.)
So, according to Paizo, you would normally have to use optional rules AND expend resources to get it to work the way that you think it should work normally.
This is on top of the RAI that are 100% clear AND the developer input saying it is so.
With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
Opponents within five feet are considered adjacent.
Logically, it makes sense for allies to be considered adjacent if they are within five feet.
You are (usually) within five feet of yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is about to get very personal, Scott.
Dude, this is nothing but personal attacks. Granted, the one where you predicted I will see any ruling that they make will be seen as my personal victory is true, and the Klar Armor Spikes thing is a good example of that, those are still personal attacks. I am not engaging in personal attacks. Not because I don't have things to say, but because I do!
I don't like your personal remarks, but really the person they are dimishing is yourself. You've been setting up your arguments, and I've been knocking them down. Now you are you're just flinging little barbs: you are telling us that you out of real arguments.
You are admitting defeat.
I could write an entire thesis on superiority complex from this paragraph alone.
"I will see any ruling that they make will be seen as my personal victory is true, /.../"
Victory? What victory are we talking about? This is a rules question in which you have an opinion on what you think is right. There's no argument to "win", just a question with a right and wrong answer.
"You are admitting defeat."
You are treating this as a contest. An argument to be won, and a foe to defeat. And in your mind, you can't ever lose.
But there is no "losing side" when we're discussing truth. Just someone being factually wrong.
***************
Do you recognize that even though it is possible to reach your conclusion, it may not be correct at all?My dear fellow, what kind of answer do you even expect from this question? Are you asking me to admit that I believe I am never wrong? Okay, I will. Of course I think I am always right. If I find out I am wrong, I will change my views, so that then I will be right.
"Of course I think I am always right."
This isn't a sane thing to say. You should consider seeking professional help.
I'm serious. This inability to be in the wrong must put a strain on your relationships.
Ask yourself, when was the last time you apologized for something?
****
Other than that, It's impossible to hold a real discussion if you're being intentionally obtuse and missing the point, while also ignoring questions you can't disprove.
|
"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. If the rules don't say you can't, then you totally can!
Whether or not you should is a different matter.
I am sure if a GM were to use this philosophy against you, you as a player would be the first to cry foul.
I have had a player say that he can wield two Earth Breakers at the same time. The rules do not expressly give him the ability to do so, but he is using this "unwritten" rule that is not forbidden Per Sey.
That the weapon is a Two Handed weapon and has no Off Hand outliers as Light and One Handed weapons do seems to go out the window when using "Thunder and Fang" even when the feat itself, rewritten from the first source to stop players from getting 1.5 str from using one Earth Breaker in one hand, is intended to be used with a Klar in the off hand.
Now, PFS has a clarification about this, making it quite clear on what the feat can and can not do. Those in a home campaign, though still try and double wield Earth Breakers.
This issue is the same type of thing, and one really needs to look at the intent of the Teamwork feats to see that BWG will not work with a single Ally.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rationale for why teamwork feats should work solo comes down to two bits of 'rule' text. First:
"In most cases, these feats require an ally who* also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield.
- Bold this does allow exceptions to the rule, but because of the word most the default assumption is that they require an ally who posesses the feat to be in position. Every rule debate surrounding this phase must first start from this position and prove they are a valid exception.
- * Who is this sentence uses definition 3 suggesting that 'also possesses the feat' is a relative clause. These clauses function as adjectives.
Let's build a sentence around the same grammatical structure.
"In most cases, these jobs require a person who also possesses a drivers licence to be driving about the city.
Now, let's also rebuild the sentence removing the relative clause and relacing it with an adjective in its normal poition.
"In most cases, these feats require an ally who is tall to be positioned carefully on the battlefield.
This can be written more concisely as:
"In most cases, these feats require a tall ally to be positioned carefully on the battlefield.
In this case, we see that the relative clause can be mandatory. It is also grammatically more sound to treat it as such. So, this phrase provides no rules definitive evidence for either side but structurally supports the ally part not being mandatory much more.
Second:
"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.'
Let say you do invoke the full faq to count as your ally. This changes the teamwork feats rule to something like the following.
"In most cases, these feats require you and your ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield." The substitution is imperfect but that's as grammatically close as you get.
So there is a problem here, the grammatical exchange from the faq does not work here. This can rightfully be declared to 'make no sense'. If you follow the faq it does not help the case that you can use these solo as the suggest rules rewrite supports the idea that you need an ally.
But, let's be less literal let's say when you modify the rule to allow you to do it.
You are left with this part of the phrase. "If doing so would make no sense or be impossible." This is not a hard rule it is a subjective statement.
Words have meanings Teamwork has a meaning. No definition of teamwork use the singular person. Teamwork is impossible to do alone even if you count as your own ally. Does counting as your own ally make you count as two people.
Let's take telekinetic charge as an example. If being your own ally made you count as 2 people, you and the ally you could not telekinetically charge yourself because that would be 2 willing creatures.
"Target one willing creature"
"You telekinetically launch an ally across the battlefield to anywhere within this spell’s range."
Spells like this show that the default game assumption does not treat you as two people even if you are your own ally.
So who gets to decide if it 'makes no sense' or is 'impossible'. Well, the game masters guide says this about the role of the GM.
"Even with the vast range of options presented in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, only GMs know what threats their players might face or powers they might come to control. Just as GMs arbitrate the rules within their games, so can they manipulate, repurpose, and wholly invent new rules to improve their games."
Even if you invoke both of the described rules without regard to anything else I have written all you achieve is asking the GM if they feel this is impossible or makes sense. The fact that many gms here disagree with this reading means that at some tables this will not fly so this cannot be declared 'clearly allowed' in the rules.