..... there isn't really any wrong way to interpret a sentence.I'm going to disagree here. When people say something is wrong with regard to how the rules read they are normally saying it is incorrect. By saying it is incorrect they are saying it is not in-line with what the speaker/writer intended. In that sense it is wrong.
Even with that aside interpreting/understanding can always be wrong.
I'm saying that technically even the one who writes something gives away ownership of it's meaning the moment it is given out to the world. It will mean whatever the reader believes it to mean.
you see this kind of discussion a lot when dealing with old books. Where the culture and author themselves that the book was written for is no longer present. Modern interpretations of old books usually are very different when viewed from an ancient cultural view point.
so to be clear, the author's intent doesn't have any greater intent than the reader's read intent.
That is nonsense. If people actually tried to hold conversations like that nothing would get done. In that case things could be whatever I want them to be.
Imagine killing someone because you think it is legal. I really doubt anyone would say, well het though it was legal so he wasn't wrong with his understanding. Inability to understand something will have a large bearing on how the trial plays out, which is why kids(lets say 8 years old) wouldn't get the same punishment as a 19 year old. Understanding things is pretty much the norm.
they ARE what ever you want them to be.
If people think that he broke the law, they can try to prove it in court(or out of court for that matter). Someone being convicted for a crime doesn't actually "have" to do with them committing the crime only that the evidence is enough for the jury to convict. If they choose to forgo court they can run believing they don't deserve the punishment for committing the crime, etc etc.
In fact if the Jury was so inclined to take his point of view that he didn't understand he was doing something illegal, they CAN choose to say he is not guilty.
likewise a Judge has to interpret the law on a regular basis and will often disagree with other judges.
It's why we have appeals courts and the supreme court, and after all that we choose to believe the supreme court is the final arbitrator. If we didn't we could try to break from the union however likely the US will see the land as sovereign territory and try to reclaim it.
Who's reading of the law in any of this was necessarily correct? Especially when laws are written by many many different people.
What if the primary author of a law believed a law did X, and the people who voted to pass it thought it did something entirely different, Y. So does the law mean X or Y or both?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is nonsense. If people actually tried to hold conversations like that nothing would get done. In that case things could be whatever I want them to be.they ARE what ever you want them to be.
What's that you say?
Your words actually mean that you concede that your 'subjective reality' argument is pointless and self-defeating?
So good to see that we all agree and can move on to more substantive matters.
Back to "Do you count as your own ally for teamwork feats". I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning why you do, or do not, count as your own ally for the following feats:
Each of these as commonly understood implies an additional ally in the mix.
However, the broken wing gambit feat can also be read, and understood, as well as plausibly work with a single individual.
It all depends on the text of the feat.
Really, a lot of teamwork feats don't make sense with yourself because you cannot normally flank with yourself. Though I'd let someone using Dimensional Savant (and flanking with themselves as a result) gain the benefits of those teamwork feats.
That is nonsense. If people actually tried to hold conversations like that nothing would get done. In that case things could be whatever I want them to be.they ARE what ever you want them to be.What's that you say?
Your words actually mean that you concede that your 'subjective reality' argument is pointless and self-defeating?
So good to see that we all agree and can move on to more substantive matters.
yes
though back to reality. the entire writing was/is subjective.
the point is, laws are subjective and can't be said to have a true meaning.
just to point everything out. who's the final judge on whether the feat does allow you to provoke AoO, the Dev Team who could make a FAQ? The person who wrote the feat? or your GM?
Back to "Do you count as your own ally for teamwork feats". I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning why you do, or do not, count as your own ally for the following feats:
Each of these as commonly understood implies an additional ally in the mix.
Why? Explain the difference.
But lets look at combat medic in particular. Part of the argument being made to claim broken wing gambit can be used solo is the general text of teamwork feats.
...these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat...
This language is nearly identical to that in combat medic.
...or treat poison on an ally who also has this feat...
Please explain why it supports solo broken wing gambit, but not solo combat medic.
That is nonsense. If people actually tried to hold conversations like that nothing would get done. In that case things could be whatever I want them to be.they ARE what ever you want them to be.What's that you say?
Your words actually mean that you concede that your 'subjective reality' argument is pointless and self-defeating?
So good to see that we all agree and can move on to more substantive matters.
yes
though back to reality. the entire writing was/is subjective.
the point is, laws are subjective and can't be said to have a true meaning.
just to point everything out. who's the final judge on whether the feat does allow you to provoke AoO, the Dev Team who could make a FAQ? The person who wrote the feat? or your GM?
That has nothing to do with intent though.
As an example there things that I know Paizo intended to be run a certain way, but as a GM I don't like it so I run it in my own way.
That means that myself and Paizo agree on intent, but I don't like how it would affect my game.
If I reported this post to Paizo saying you called me ugly(physical appearance) despite there being nothing here to suggest you never mentioning anything of the sort then I am obviously incorrect. I can feel like you think I am ugly, but that is an entirely different thing than me being correct about anything you actually said/wrote.
That would make me factually wrong, no matter how I try to spin it.
Why? Explain the difference.But lets look at combat medic in particular. Part of the argument being made to claim broken wing gambit can be used solo is the general text of teamwork feats.
...these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat...
This language is nearly identical to that in combat medic.
Please explain why it supports solo broken wing gambit, but not solo combat medic.
...or treat poison on an ally who also has this feat...
The text between broken wing gambit is dissimilar enough to remove the implication that it requires a second person:
Benefit: Whenever you use Heal to provide first aid, treat caltrop wounds, or treat poison on an ally who also has this feat, you provoke no attacks of opportunity, and can take 10 on the check.
...on an ally who also has this feat -- this phrase implies that you are cooperating with another who assists you in your heal check -- because he has the same training as you do.
...If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.
There is no direct reference to "on an ally who also", in this phrase. It simply references allies who have this feat, which, per the FAQ, includes yourself. It is missing the word "also" (which is basically the way a feat references someone else, not just yourself).
If you read the the thread, with the discussion between Wraithstrike and I, we pretty much describe (in non-mechanical terms) how using broken wing gambit can be used as a psuedo-feint/riposte tactic by a single person against a single opponent.
The text between broken wing gambit is dissimilar enough to remove the implication that it requires a second person:
Your opinion that the text is dissimilar enough to allow you to count as your own ally does not have any rules support though. In fairness, neither does my opinion of the opposite - I'm relying on the circumstantial contextual evidence, that teamwork feats do, in fact, require a team.
I'm glad to see though that you understand that when the text in the general description of teamwork feats, and combat medic specifically, that says "also" necessitates someone other than yourself.
If you read the the thread, with the discussion between Wraithstrike and I, we pretty much describe (in non-mechanical terms) how using broken wing gambit can be used as a psuedo-feint/riposte tactic by a single person against a single opponent.
I can understand how it might be visualized, but being able to visualize how something might work does not make that something the rule.
I'm glad to see though that you understand that when the text in the general description of teamwork feats, and combat medic specifically, that says "also" necessitates someone other than yourself.
I've never been of the mind that because of the you are your own ally FAQ came about that somehow with teamwork feats suddenly all teamwork feats can be used solo. It always depended on the text of the feat.
It's interesting to note that if this feat can be used solo, then it is actually the least powerful manifestation of the feat given the cumulative nature of the attacks of opportunity if you can get multiple individuals to focus on the right targets and spread out their attacks.
I can understand how it might be visualized, but being able to visualize how something might work does not make that something the rule.
It not only can be visualized as working with a single person, it can plausibly be read as requiring only a single person as well. :D The lack of "also" is significant in my mind.
The issue from this stems from the fact the FAQ says you almost always count.as your own ally. Almost =/= always.
It's a teamwork feat. It requires a team mate. The FAQ was for things like bards songs and spells with ally as targets. Not to pretend you are 2 people.
You don't count as an ally for this setup.
Almost != Always. It also != Never as well.
Almost != Always. It also != Never as well.The issue from this stems from the fact the FAQ says you almost always count.as your own ally. Almost =/= always.
It's a teamwork feat. It requires a team mate. The FAQ was for things like bards songs and spells with ally as targets. Not to pretend you are 2 people.
You don't count as an ally for this setup.
But there are already dozens (hundreds?) of known instances where it does count. Refer to any spell that calls out allies. Prayer, bless, haste, etc, etc, etc.
But there are already dozens (hundreds?) of known instances where it does count. Refer to any spell that calls out allies. Prayer, bless, haste, etc, etc, etc.
Yes, that is the general rule. However, as with all generalizations, there are exceptions. It is my belief that the Broken Wing Gambit feat *could be* an exception, given it's wording.
Per the FAQ, to be an exception, something needs to fulfill one of three conditions:
a) otherwise stated
b) doing so would make no sense
c) doing so would be impossible
a) is obviously false because there is no such text in the feat, b) is false if you look at how many examples are where of people using the tactic and then attack the target themself and c) is false because the text explicitly says that you feign weakness, that doesn't make you helpless. It also doesn't say that you can't take offensive actions while using the feat.
I do agree that they presumably intended to have teamwork feats only for multiple people, but the FAQ does not actually enforce that. Indeed, the only thing that speaks against getting an AoO is the classification as a teamwork feat. But if you would require teamwork for every teamwork feat, you could also argue that combat feats only work in combat, which can not be true (Stunning Irruption talks about "before starting combat").
Per the FAQ, to be an exception, something needs to fulfill one of three conditions:
a) otherwise stated
b) doing so would make no sense
c) doing so would be impossiblea) is obviously false because there is no such text in the feat, b) is false if you look at how many examples are where of people using the tactic and then attack the target themself and c) is false because the text explicitly says that you feign weakness, that doesn't make you helpless. It also doesn't say that you can't take offensive actions while using the feat.
I do agree that they presumably intended to have teamwork feats only for multiple people, but the FAQ does not actually enforce that. Indeed, the only thing that speaks against getting an AoO is the classification as a teamwork feat. But if you would require teamwork for every teamwork feat, you could also argue that combat feats only work in combat, which can not be true (Stunning Irruption talks about "before starting combat").
That combat feat only working combat is a terrible comparison. The "combat" in that name is there mostly due to the nature of the game, and the fact that the fighter class can select them with it's bonus feats. Nothing in those feats suggest "you typically need to be in combat", unlike the teamwork feats which suggest "you normally need a partner in a certain position".
Most combat feats can only be used in combat. Most teamwork feats can only be used with teeamwork. Both have exceptions*. The teamwork tag is required for stuff like a Cavalier's bonus feats or Tactician ability. Weapon Style Mastery is designated a Style feat, too, even though it obviously is no style itself (if it were, it would use up one of it's two styles that cen be used simultanously and thus would have absolutely zero effect).
*) "In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield." In most cases explicitly makes exceptions possible.
Most combat feats can only be used in combat. Most teamwork feats can only be used with teeamwork. Both have exceptions*. The teamwork tag is required for stuff like a Cavalier's bonus feats or Tactician ability. Weapon Style Mastery is designated a Style feat, too, even though it obviously is no style itself (if it were, it would use up one of it's two styles that cen be used simultanously and thus would have absolutely zero effect).
*) "In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield." In most cases explicitly makes exceptions possible.
There is no "in most cases" for the combat feats, and that is the point I am getting at. The fact that such wording exist means for the teamwork feats that is the normal case for teamwork feats.
In no way is there any support to compare the two in the manner in which you tried to in the previous post.
Most people are reading that "most cases" as "unless otherwise stated". Now could Paizo expect for to just know which ones make sense to not be able to use yourself as an ally, and which ones do not?
Sure it is possible, but I am hoping that is not the case.
...
Most people are reading that "most cases" as "unless otherwise stated". Now could Paizo expect for to just know which ones make sense to not be able to use yourself as an ally, and which ones do not?
...
"most cases except (virtually?) all teamwork feats is not a particularly reasonable interpretation of "most cases". If Teamwork feats should generally require another ally, then that is a huge exception. It is one of the primary areas where this issue would crop up.
The only real justification for interpreting "most cases" that way is if "most cases" doesn't mean "most cases" i.e. the FAQ was badly written and you are trying to guess the real intent despite the text and "most cases"!=most cases is what you came up with (and which I would agree with, but the FAQ is still bad for lax/wrong/misleading wording and should be fixed).
...
Most people are reading that "most cases" as "unless otherwise stated". Now could Paizo expect for to just know which ones make sense to not be able to use yourself as an ally, and which ones do not?
..."most cases except (virtually?) all teamwork feats is not a particularly reasonable interpretation of "most cases". If Teamwork feats should generally require another ally, then that is a huge exception. It is one of the primary areas where this issue would crop up.
The only real justification for interpreting "most cases" that way is if "most cases" doesn't mean "most cases" i.e. the FAQ was badly written and you are trying to guess the real intent despite the text and "most cases"!=most cases is what you came up with (and which I would agree with, but the FAQ is still bad for lax/wrong/misleading wording and should be fixed).
I agree that FAQ should be fixed. The "unless it doesn't make sense" is way to open to interpretation. That is why I created the other FAQ thread for the teamwork feats, since I figured focusing on a specific use of ally with relation to other rules was a lot better than trying to get an FAQ fixed.
Hopefully it is part of the series of FAQ's that we get later today, and hopefully we have more concrete answers, and not more "open to interpretation" type language.
Most people are reading that "most cases" as "unless otherwise stated".
Also, what most people think is irrelevant. If Paizo wanted to only allow noted exceptions, they could have written "unless otherwise stated" in the discription of how teamwork feats work. They did not, the wording they used allows for unstated exceptions.
Plus, it is otherwise stated - in the FAQ!Now could Paizo expect for to just know which ones make sense to not be able to use yourself as an ally, and which ones do not?
Sure it is possible, but I am hoping that is not the case.
That is excactly what they're asking us to do with the FAQ.
Most people are reading that "most cases" as "unless otherwise stated".Also, what most people think is irrelevant. If Paizo wanted to only allow noted exceptions, they would have written "unless otherwise stated" in the discription of how teamwork feats work.
Considering that Pathfinder has quiet a good number of rules backed up in their FAQ que, that can not be taken as a factual statement.
Replacing "would" with "should" is likely more accurate.
edit: Saying what is written, when it is not written well means nothing(or very close to it) by itself. If writing by itself carried all the weight that was needed this conversation would not even be taking place. <--with regard to the FAQ sentence you referenced
Fixed.
Your wording fix does nothing to change my point. What they could have done is irrelevant when people want to know intent. If they want to know RAW then admittedly it matters. The RAW says some feat somewhere may allow it, but that point was conceded a long time ago, at least by me.
However it seems we both agree that clarification is needed, and hopefully they dont make us wait too long.
Per the FAQ, to be an exception, something needs to fulfill one of three conditions:
a) otherwise stated
b) doing so would make no sense
c) doing so would be impossiblea) is obviously false because there is no such text in the feat, b) is false if you look at how many examples are where of people using the tactic and then attack the target themself and c) is false because the text explicitly says that you feign weakness, that doesn't make you helpless. It also doesn't say that you can't take offensive actions while using the feat.
To go through your response:
a) is not obviously false, because there is text in the feat -- the lack of the "also", that is common to the other teamwork feats. As I have stated previously. What you are trying to say is that there is no "express statement" stating otherwise. This requirement is impossible to meet for any feats published prior to the FAQ.
b) There are plenty of instances where a single person feigns weakness only to attack his attacker with an advantage -- which is exactly what this feat does. Making this a teamwork feat vs. an individual combat feat is Paizo attempting to sell the cooperative advantage of teamwork feats (which is a large part of Ultimate Combat). You will not that there is no express statement that says that the false victim here *cannot* gain the attack of opportunity. It just says that allies gain them (and with the faq, you are your ally, so you are included in that group).
c) As both myself and Wraithstrike have described in great detail, there is quite a few examples of single combatants feigning weakness to gain an advantage. It works quite well as a single-user combat feat conceptually as well as mechanically.
Per the FAQ, to be an exception, something needs to fulfill one of three conditions:
a) otherwise stated
b) doing so would make no sense
c) doing so would be impossiblea) is obviously false because there is no such text in the feat, b) is false if you look at how many examples are where of people using the tactic and then attack the target themself and c) is false because the text explicitly says that you feign weakness, that doesn't make you helpless. It also doesn't say that you can't take offensive actions while using the feat.
To go through your response:
a) is not obviously false, because there is text in the feat -- the lack of the "also", that is common to the other teamwork feats. As I have stated previously. What you are trying to say is that there is no "express statement" stating otherwise. This requirement is impossible to meet for any feats published prior to the FAQ.
b) There are plenty of instances where a single person feigns weakness only to attack his attacker with an advantage -- which is exactly what this feat does. Making this a teamwork feat vs. an individual combat feat is Paizo attempting to sell the cooperative advantage of teamwork feats (which is a large part of Ultimate Combat). You will not that there is no express statement that says that the false victim here *cannot* gain the attack of opportunity. It just says that allies gain them (and with the faq, you are your ally, so you are included in that group).
c) As both myself and Wraithstrike have described in great detail, there is quite a few examples of single combatants feigning weakness to gain an advantage. It works quite well as a single-user combat feat conceptually as well as mechanically.
Watching you argue with someone who agrees with you is amusing :).
b) doing so would make no sense
b) is false if you look at how many examples are where of people using the tactic and then attack the target themself
How people who are not part of the PDT view this type/style of fighting has zero bearing on how the rule works in pathfinder. The intent may be for it to match those other fantasy settings, or it may not. If that is the intent though, they could certainly be much more clear about it. (e.g, not make it a teamwork feat, specifically call out that you and your allies get to take an AoO, etc).
*) "In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield." In most cases explicitly makes exceptions possible.
But the sentence is not "In most cases you must have an ally with the feat". It is "ally who also possesses the feat to be carefully positioned on the battlefield." The important point of the sentence (IMO) is the positioning. In some cases, there is no battlefield positioning requirement. That is the complete sentence. Suggesting in most cases applies to the "ally possesses" portion only is an erroneous reading of the sentence.
Watching you argue with someone who agrees with you is amusing :).
He may agree with me overall, which amounts to "exceptions exist".
However, at least as I read his point, we didn't agree on the specifics of the broken wing gambit, and whether that qualifies as one of the exceptions.
But the sentence is not "In most cases you must have an ally with the feat". It is "ally who also possesses the feat to be carefully positioned on the battlefield." The important point of the sentence (IMO) is the positioning. In some cases, there is no battlefield positioning requirement. That is the complete sentence. Suggesting in most cases applies to the "ally possesses" portion only is an erroneous reading of the sentence.
*) "In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield." In most cases explicitly makes exceptions possible.
There are feats that simulate the requirement for teamwork via solo operators, so to diminish the presence of the ally and increase the importance of positioning is a bit self-serving.
There are actually 3 conditions that must be fulfilled, either virtually or otherwise: ally, position, and feat. All three are equally important, and exceptions exist in the rules for all three. And even in some cases, you don't even need one or more of those conditions at all, or one comes with the other (most common is ally and position).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are feats that simulate the requirement for teamwork via solo operators, so to diminish the presence of the ally and increase the importance of positioning is a bit self-serving.
Those are exceptions. Exceptions to the rule help show what the general rule is, but do not make the general rule. I further reject your notion that my purpose is self-serving. I'm arguing for not picking out part of a sentence only, but using the entire sentence and the complete thought it intends to convey - see below for more.
There are actually 3 conditions that must be fulfilled, either virtually or otherwise: ally, position, and feat. All three are equally important, and exceptions exist in the rules for all three. And even in some cases, you don't even need one or more of those conditions at all, or one comes with the other (most common is ally and position).
But the sentence isn't "In most cases, you must have an ally who also has this feat, OR an ally with the correct battlefield position". It is a complete single thought, you must have an ally with the feat AND the battlefield position. In some cases that package is not a requirement. The negative does not prove that in some cases you don't need the 'other ally' (nor does it prove that in some cases you don't need the correct positioning). Individual feats need to make those distinctions.
Those that don't require battlefield positioning are very clear that that is not a requirement (or rather more explicitly, those that need a battlefield position very plainly state they need a battlefield position).
Those that don't need another ally - that is not clear at all (I don't believe any of them fall into that category). None of them distinctly say "This can work for you and your other allies". And none of them distinctly say "This can only work for your allies, but not for you." As such you are making an arbitrary judgement call when saying broken wing gambit qualifies yourself as your ally.
Now in fairness, I am likewise making an arbitrary judgement call, but I'm basing it on the context of teamwork feats - and the idea that things that are the same, are indeed the same, unless they tell us differently. It's a teamwork feat, it is therefore, I believe, intended to work like all other teamwork feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As such you are making an arbitrary judgement call when saying broken wing gambit qualifies yourself as your ally.Now in fairness, I am likewise making an arbitrary judgement call, but I'm basing it on the context of teamwork feats - and the idea that things that are the same, are indeed the same, unless they tell us differently. It's a teamwork feat, it is therefore, I believe, intended to work like all other teamwork feats.
I'm not making a judgement call when I am saying that I count as my own ally -- that is plainly stated in the faq.
Yes, it is a teamwork feat, however that is just a category of feat, like combat feats, which allows certain classes to pick up as bonus feats, much like fighters have special availability to combat feats. Moreover the description of the category makes explicit that there are exceptions to the general rule that more than one person has to be involved, and that those allies positioning doesn't necessarily matter.
With Broken wing gambit, If you qualify to attack as an attack of opportunity, you can take that attack with whatever weapon you choose. (Ranged weapons with snapshot, etc). All that needs to happen is that you or your allies threaten them -- which is an attack of opportunity requirement.
The Broken Paw Gambit even allows for attacks as an immediate action which allows ranged weapons to attack when they can't normally make an attack of opportunity. It also doesn't expressly infer that it's only other allies only that can attack...it is "each ally"...of which you are one.
With those exceptions expressly stated in the description of the feat category, that leads me to the determination that there is enough textual differentiation with Broken Wing/Paw Gambit feats to conclude that with the FAQ of you are your own ally, you can use these feats solo.
Once again you're taking something that is usually one way and assuming it is by de facto the only way to look at it. That is not the case.
What is "plainly stated" in the FAQ is you almost always count as your own ally. This feat doesn't seem to be the case of that "always" to me and others. It is an exception.
However, what is going to happen is there will be an FAQ, and I believe it will be a teamwork feat in that it needs others to work and people will complain about the paizo team nerfing things instead of what's actually happening, a clarification.
I'd suggest hitting the FAQ button and moving on. And agreeing to not complain about the result.
Nope, I'm not stating anything of the kind -- I'm more or less playing devil's advocate in my stance that both Broken Wing and Broken Paw only require one individual.
I can easily understand the other viewpoint here. It is very plausible, and quite frankly more than likely the case.
See my first post: the text is ambiguous -- but as a GM, I, personally wouldn't have a problem with a solo actor having this feat and using it. And I also showed my reasoning behind my decision.
I'm not making a judgement call when I am saying that I count as my own ally -- that is plainly stated in the faq.
The judgement call your making is that, given a whole series of feats explicitly designed around allies who are not you, these 1 or 2 don't fit that model. Your making the judgement call based not on them telling you they don't fit the model, but based on them not explicitly saying they are part of the model group.
That is nonsense. If people actually tried to hold conversations like that nothing would get done. In that case things could be whatever I want them to be.they ARE what ever you want them to be.What's that you say?
Your words actually mean that you concede that your 'subjective reality' argument is pointless and self-defeating?
So good to see that we all agree and can move on to more substantive matters.
yes
though back to reality. the entire writing was/is subjective.
the point is, laws are subjective and can't be said to have a true meaning.
just to point everything out. who's the final judge on whether the feat does allow you to provoke AoO, the Dev Team who could make a FAQ? The person who wrote the feat? or your GM?
That has nothing to do with intent though.
As an example there things that I know Paizo intended to be run a certain way, but as a GM I don't like it so I run it in my own way.
That means that myself and Paizo agree on intent, but I don't like how it would affect my game.
If I reported this post to Paizo saying you called me ugly(physical appearance) despite there being nothing here to suggest you never mentioning anything of the sort then I am obviously incorrect. I can feel like you think I am ugly, but that is an entirely different thing than me being correct about anything you actually said/wrote.
That would make me factually wrong, no matter how I try to spin it.
so I tried to stay away from this subject, but here i go.
what if, in all actuality, your browser did say that I said you were ugly. No one else sees it though. Even if I may have done it, I do not have any recollection of having called you ugly. what does this mean?
It means what actually happened doesn't matter, only what is happening to you matters to you.
Evidence can be faked, even in your post the author intended for you(not you in particular) to use his feat(or at least leave it as an option), yet you disagreed. your disagreement doesn't have to be illogical or something the author would object to, you simply didn't use his rules.
that' what i'm trying to point out.
WHAT are we trying to prove here? RAW? RAI of paizo? something else?
arguing Paizo's RAI is impossible or needlessly complicated due to the subjective nature of the universe.
RAW, the enemy provokes opportunity, you are your own ally if your GM thinks it is reasonable, thus you get an AoO or you don't. Thems the end of it, because I doubt a FAQ.
I'm saying arguing this is pointless, since it's the GMs choice based off of whether he thinks it makes sense. that's subjective, there's no possible correct answer.
The judgement call your making is that, given a whole series of feats explicitly designed around allies who are not you, these 1 or 2 don't fit that model. Your making the judgement call based not on them telling you they don't fit the model, but based on them not explicitly saying they are part of the model group.
I'm not making a judgement call when I am saying that I count as my own ally -- that is plainly stated in the faq.
The model expressly states there are exceptions, and these two have different text than other teamwork feats that are much more explicit in their need for additional individuals to work.
So, yes. Based on the text, that is what I am doing. That is pretty much the role of anyone that plays a rule based game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your wording fix does nothing to change my point.
I know, but now it's more accurately what I wanted to say.
I consider the FAQ to be a lazy cop-out. If they want to have clarity, they should errata every instance where you are not supposed to be included to say "other ally" or "other allies".
Suggesting in most cases applies to the "ally possesses" portion only is an erroneous reading of the sentence.
"In most cases, (...)" renders the entire sentence after the comma open to exceptions. The way it is worded, the "ally possesses" part is not a hard rule but a mere discription.
How people who are not part of the PDT view this type/style of fighting has zero bearing on how the rule works in pathfinder
I think in this rare case it does, because you don't check the Pathfinder rules to see if something "make[s] no sense"; you use common sense and examples. This is not the first time that designers explicitly expect you to use common sense and real life experience.
What is "plainly stated" in the FAQ is you almost always count as your own ally. This feat doesn't seem to be the case of that "always" to me and others. It is an exception.
As I said in post 67, the FAQ has three conditions that allow excpetions to the general rulke it states. Which condition do you see fulfilled?
@Quintain: The post's point was that Broken Wing Gambit doesn't qualify for an exception, and if none of the FAQ's three exceptions are met, then the general statement the FAQ makes ("you count as your own ally") is valid.
Your wording fix does nothing to change my point.I know, but now it's more accurately what I wanted to say.
I consider the FAQ to be a lazy cop-out. If they want to have clarity, they should errata every instance where you are not supposed to be included to say "other ally" or "other allies".
...
I would be happy if they had an FAQ but made it a hard rule and FAQ'd/errata'd everything that didn't fit. None of this "X except a,b,c but actually X except a,b,c,d,e,f go figure those last three out on your own".
Suggesting in most cases applies to the "ally possesses" portion only is an erroneous reading of the sentence."In most cases, (...)" renders the entire sentence after the comma open to exceptions. The way it is worded, the "ally possesses" part is not a hard rule but a mere discription.
Precisely. But the sentence is not X or Y. It is X and Y.
In most cases X and Y combined are requirements. In some cases that combination is not required.
But now we go read through the individual feats, and we see things like flanking, adjacent, within 30' of each other, etc, all calling out specific battlefield positioning requirements for many of them. Yet we see ZERO instances of any of them explicitly stating they can be used solo.
So you are using outside material to support the idea that broken wing gambit can be used solo. I'm using the context within which the feat is written to say it can't. Neither of us can declare with certainty RAW on it, but I'll take the games contextual rules as stronger evidence over "other fantasy systems, genre, etc".
I find using the games actual written text as more common sense than something external to the game. Only in the absence of any actual text to suggest one way or another might be correct would I look outside for a common sense answer (much like the link you posted where no text within the rule set talks at all about your prone condition if you go unconscious).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the sentence is not X or Y. It is X and Y.
In most cases X and Y combined are requirements. In some cases that combination is not required.
It does not say that. The way it's written allows for exceptions from the whole sentence, not just the second part.
So you are using outside material to support the idea that broken wing gambit can be used solo.
I'm using outside material to determine whether BWG falls under the second exception listed in the FAQ ("doing so would make no sense"), or not. There is no rule text defining what makes sense and what not, therefor it is mandatory to look outside of the actual rules.
Please tell me, what about feigning weakness and then attacking the enemy during his unwary attack "make[s] no sense"? If you can not explain that to me, the second listed explanation in the FAQ is not fulfilled.
I have shown that there are other other instances where the [type of feat]-tag exists only so the feat to counts for bonus feats and other interactions, and the feat in question can be used outside of the context of that tag.
But the sentence is not X or Y. It is X and Y.
In most cases X and Y combined are requirements. In some cases that combination is not required.
It does not say that. The way it's written allows for exceptions from the whole sentence, not just the second part.
Your not understanding what I'm saying. Yes, it applies to the WHOLE sentence. Then when we read the individual feats (which are more important than that generalized text) we see that certain ones explicitly spell out the positioning requirement, and others do not make mention of any specific positioning requirements. The same cannot be said of the ally possessing the feat requirement - so making a distinction there is an arbitrary one. It may or may not be the RAI, but we cannot definitively determine the RAW.
So yes, the exceptions could be applied to the whole sentence and not just the second part. But the individual feats only make explicit exceptions to the positioning part. Exceptions to the feat possessing part are guesswork.
Please tell me, what about feigning weakness and then attacking the enemy during his unwary attack "make[s] no sense"? If you can not explain that to me, the second listed explanation in the FAQ is not fulfilled.
I've explained above, I can visualize that. Let me flip the question. What part of teamwork feat makes sense when there isn't actually a team? I understand the 'tagging' idea. That does not mean the idea of a teamwork feat does not provide a context from which to read the rules though.
"Combat" is a tag for a lot of feats. Yet everyone of those feats provides some sort of advantage for the mechanics dictated by the combat rules - attack rolls, damage, saves, AoO's, AC, CMB, CMD, etc - all combat related, that doesn't mean they can't be used outside of combat in say, an archery contest or something, but they effect things that are dictated by the combat rules. Can I smash an object outside of combat? Sure. How does that work? Well lets look at where it references sundering items, described in the rules for combat, and follow those rules.
"Item Creation" feats ALL have something to do with creating items.
"Metamagic" feats ALL have something to do with enhancing spells.
"Critical" feats all have something to do with making your crits hit harder, more often, rider effect, etc.
So it should not be surprising that "Teamwork" feats all have something to do with working as a team.
see this is what i'm talking about, these rules are simply open to interpretation with how things are written. D:
there's no winners here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do understand what you're saying, I'm just disagreeing with it.
So yes, the exceptions could be applied to the whole sentence and not just the second part. But the individual feats only make explicit exceptions to the positioning part.
And that's the reason I disagree with you: It doesn't matter if we only have exceptions for the second part, the way it's worded allows exceptions for the first part, too. Therefor, We can not take the first part as a hard rule. Which means "otherwise stated" is not fulfilled.
I've explained above, I can visualize that.
If you can visualize that, "doing so would make no sense" is not fulfilled (dito for "doing so would be impossible").
What part of teamwork feat makes sense when there isn't actually a team?
It's a feat that get's better with teamwork (because two AoOs is better then one). The feat does directly profit from teamwork. The feat get's better if you share it with Tactician, and therefor it does make sense that the feat is tagged as a Teamwork feat.
If a combat feat can be possibly used out of combat (like Breaker of Barriers, Cannon Master, or Social Bravery), than it stands to reason that a Teamwork feat can possibly be used outside of teamwork, too.
If neither a), nor b), or c) are fulfilled, the general rule given in the FAQ is valid.
This discussion stems from the implications of a FAQ forced to apply to Teamwork Feats through half of a sentence taken out of context.
What is the purpose of a FAQ? It is to clear up confusion. Not to change existing elements in the game. That's called errata.
Before the FAQ came, I highly doubt anybody would try and argue that Teamwork Feats could be used without the assistance of another ally. That's because every single Teamwork Feat description mention "ally with this feat" in their description.
Should an answer be taken to include a subject nobody ever considered part of the question? Because there obviously wasn't any kind of ambiguousness about how Teamwork Feats functioned before the FAQ.
*****
Moving on.
What part of teamwork feat makes sense when there isn't actually a team?It's a feat that get's better with teamwork (because two AoOs is better then one). The feat does directly profit from teamwork. The feat get's better if you share it with Tactician, and therefor it does make sense that the feat is tagged as a Teamwork feat.
If a combat feat can be possibly used out of combat (like Breaker of Barriers, Cannon Master, or Social Bravery), than it stands to reason that a Teamwork feat can possibly be used outside of teamwork, too.
If neither a), nor b), or c) are fulfilled, the general rule given in the FAQ is valid.
"A Teamwork feat is called a Teamwork Feat because it directly profits from teamwork." Am I paraphrasing your view correctly?
Because this is an understandable viewpoint which would allow one to use Teamwork Feats by oneself.My definition of a Teamwork Feat is "A feat which requires another ally with the feat to function". Since that is the common denominator of all teamwork feats. Since that is what is written in the description of all teamwork feats.
To disprove your viewpoint and strengthen my own, I present to you... Butterfly's Sting.
You can forgo a critical hit in order to pass it on to an ally.
Prerequisite: Combat Expertise.
Benefit: When you confirm a critical hit against a creature, you can choose to forgo the effect of the critical hit and grant a critical hit to the next ally who hits the creature with a melee attack before the start of your next turn. Your attack only deals normal damage, and the next ally automatically confirms the hit as a critical.
This is a General/Critical feat which requires an ally to function. It is completely useless without an ally to make use of the effect.
...So why isn't it a Teamwork Feat?
It is because it doesn't have the requirement that only an ally with the feat can benefit from the effect. It doesn't matter that it can only be used with another ally. What matters is whether or not said ally also need the feat to benefit from the effect. That's what makes it a Teamwork Feat.
While your example is compelling, if the forums are any indication, it suffers from the same "you are your own ally" ambiguity insofar as application is concerned there too.
Though butterfly's sting's passing a crit to yourself is a bit more imagination stretching than the giving yourself an attack of opportunity (which happens with other non-teamwork feats quite readily).