"broken wing gambit" "own ally" "combat reflexes"


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Broken Wing Gambit
This is the feat's text

FAQ: "you count as your own ally"
This is a possibly related FAQ answer

Teamwork Feats: "In most cases" require an ally...
This is a description of teamwork feats in general, apparently implying that not all teamwork feats require allies other than yourself

Here are the questions:

- If you count as your own ally, do you get to make an AoO when you get attacked?

- If you are attacked multiple times and you have Combat Reflexes, do you get multiple AoOs?

- Can the enemy forego the bonus in order to not provoke AoOs?


Alright, lets break it down. First off, no, you don't get multiple AoOs if you have combat reflexes because it states that if the opponent attacks you while they have the bonus and the bonus explicitly goes away when they attack you. So their first attack has the bonus, but another attack wouldn't; thus no second AoO provocation.

Second, arguably, yes. It doesn't really "not make sense" that you wouldn't count as your own ally in this case. Not making sense to count as your own ally would be, for example, giving an ally a leg-up to grant them a bonus to their climb skill; it wouldn't make sense to give yourself a leg up. But it would totally make sense that, if you are feigning at being an easy target so that your opponent's attack will be predictable to your allies, that you, yourself would also find it predictable. So each ally (with the feat) that threatens the opponent will be able to take an AoO, including yourself.

Third, I don't see any leeway for the opponent to forego the bonus because it isn't at their discretion. There's a difference between "you may gain a +2 bonus to your attack" and "another character has granted you a +2 bonus to your attack". The bonus isn't based on the opponent's actions so they don't really control its application. Otherwise, why would the opponent ever take advantage of that bonus? Now, it'd be different if there were some kind of sense motive check to determine whether you are faking or legitimately injured; succeeding at the check would let the opponent know that you're hamming it up to bait them while failing would make the opponent believe your ruse. But there's no such check; so they get the bonus whether they want it or not; making it an opportunity cost for them whether or not to attack you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I would say that teamwork feats definitely require an ally unless you have an ability which says otherwise (like Solo Tactics). Teamwork is the central part of what makes teamwork feats what they are.

The FAQ is more likely meant to clear up the confusion about class abilities/feats which states only "allies" because of word count. Not those abilities which by their nature relies on allies. Like teamwork feats.

And the part from the description of teamwork feats you quoted is misleading since you need the whole sentence, if not the whole paragraph.

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.

Note that allies who are paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats.

The "In most cases" refers to how the ally (with said feat) often must be positioned right in addition to having the feat to gain the effect. Not that having the feat is optional.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Wonderstell, so expect table variation.
I always thought that FAQ was aimed at things like a Bards inspire courage ability that affects an area.
It makes no sense to me that teamwork feats don't require a teammate.


I'll toss my lot in with Wonderstell and dragonhunterq, I think this is one of the few times you aren't your own ally. Teamwork feats should probably be assumed to not include yourself unless specified.


That FAQ was not trying to say you always get to be your own ally, and there are so many cases that one rule to cover every instance is almost impossible. Basically you have to be able to look at the ability, and ask yourself did Paizo really intend for me to use this alone.

Normally, but not always, if the ability is something that likely requires participation of another creation you are not your own ally. If it is something that protects another specific people you are not to be included. As an example even if you find a way to give yourself to standard actions in one round the intent is not for you to be able to "aid another" yourself and get a +2 bonus.

If it is something like haste that lets you buff the party you can normally include yourself as an ally.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I think it makes sense from a fluff stand point and a balance stand point, but RAW and maybe unintentional RAI point to it not granting you an AoO.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:

...

unintentional RAI
...

"unintentional rules as intended"

?????


Snowblind wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

...

unintentional RAI
...

"unintentional rules as intended"

?????

Interpreted?

Grand Lodge

It seems to me that there is no point in making this a teamwork feat if "you count as your own ally" in this case. The feat would be a regular combat feat that states that you and anyone else with it get attacks of opportunity when the enemy attacks you.

Now if you and your teamwork partner also have the Paired Opportunists teamwork feat... that's another story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"a teamwork feat is intended to require teamwork"

I understand that, and it is a legit concern.

However, it must be noted that this position is in open conflict with the FAQ. The FAQ says you always count as you own ally, except when it's impossible or makes no sense.
This is a specific exception and a feat or effect must clearly qualify in order to disallow the "own ally" general rule.

This feat is NOT impossible or meaningless if used alone, clearly: think of the 3.5 feat Robilar's Gambit (by which this feat seems vaguely inspired).
This feat could very well work and make sense from an in-game perspective.

Please do not mix personal impressions with hard rules.

I agree that MAYBE the designers didn't think the feat could be used alone, maybe.

Doesn't change that the feat does not qualify as an exception to the general rule because it still makes sense in-game.

Even if it's labeled as teamwork, there is no rule at all that defines the limits of teamwork feats in a way that makes this feat fit into the exception of "not making sense".
Without a rule that defines the limits of teamwork feats, it cannot legitimately be inferred that such limitations exist.

GMs are obviously allowed to not like this and change it.
Rules are, however, very clear on this matter.

In short,
-"teamwork feats always require teamwork" is a convincing argument, but it's NOT a rule.
-The actions described in the feat could reasonably be performed alone, so it doesn't qualify as an exception for its content either.
-GMs are free to override the rule with a ruling.

Please note that not liking something doesn't make it less true. I do not like and find inelegant that a feat labeled as "teamwork" can be used alone, but if a deep analysys of rules gives this result, I'm not going to shut my eyes in front of it.

Knowing how things actually work in a technical way doesn't make your rulings less legitimate.
The fact that rules bring to this unintuitive result is not a threat to your tastes or anything.

If you think this is all wrong, please link me a rule that defines how Teamwork Feats always require teamwork.
If it's just a supposition, then you should also assume that Combat Feats can only be used in combat, which is not the case obviously.


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

"a teamwork feat is intended to require teamwork"

I understand that, and it is a legit concern.

However, it must be noted that this position is in open conflict with the FAQ. The FAQ says you always count as you own ally, except when it's impossible or makes no sense.
This is a specific exception and a feat or effect must clearly qualify in order to disallow the "own ally" general rule.

This feat is NOT impossible or meaningless if used alone, clearly: think of the 3.5 feat Robilar's Gambit (by which this feat seems vaguely inspired).
This feat could very well work and make sense from an in-game perspective.

Please do not mix personal impressions with hard rules.

I agree that MAYBE the designers didn't think the feat could be used alone, maybe.

Doesn't change that the feat does not qualify as an exception to the general rule because it still makes sense in-game.

Even if it's labeled as teamwork, there is no rule at all that defines the limits of teamwork feats in a way that makes this feat fit into the exception of "not making sense".
Without a rule that defines the limits of teamwork feats, it cannot legitimately be inferred that such limitations exist.

GMs are obviously allowed to not like this and change it.
Rules are, however, very clear on this matter.

In short,
-"teamwork feats always require teamwork" is a convincing argument, but it's NOT a rule.
-The actions described in the feat could reasonably be performed alone, so it doesn't qualify as an exception for its content either.
-GMs are free to override the rule with a ruling.

The rules are not written like a technical manual, and the designers have said to use common sense when reading the rules.

There is even a thread on here making run of the rules if you read them in the most literal way possible.

The question is "are you asking us what do think the PDT would say if they were here" or are you asking "what is the most literal reading of this rule because only the actual words matter at your table".

I ask because many times people see the rule as what was meant, and some come asking and they want the most literal interpretation, so in order to avoid people talking past each other tell us which one you want, and we can go from there.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense from a rules perspective, but "what makes sense" can often be subjective. So if you are leaning towards the most literal interpretation I will tell you that you can be your own ally despite me not really being behind it, but expect table variation.

Grand Lodge

You are free to interpert the rules however you like when you are GMing

I'm going to stick with Teamwork feats require... teamwork. The rules for teamwork feats are more specific in this case than the general rule that you count as your own ally.


@wraithstrike
I am only interested in the most technically verifiable interpretation when it's about rules.

Anything involving preconceptions, suppositions or personal taste I see as not rules, burt rulings.
Rulings belong to the Advice forum. See my last post on Shadow Companion, in the Advice forum: "do you feel a shadowdancer should be allowed to precisely control its shadow companion?"
I'm asking for opinions and tastes there.

Rulings are a good tool, I do rulings myself when I GM and I accept rulings as a player as long as I'm informed in advance and can react accordingly before making choices.
I'm not against rulings per se, only when they get confused with actual RAW. I take pride in drawing a clear line of demarcation.
When rules as written are extremely absurd, I laugh at them too. I am still human, even thought I want to think like a computer when it's about rules.

dwayne germaine wrote:
The rules for teamwork feats are more specific in this case

The problem is, that the rules you are talking about do not exist.

I'll be happy to learn that I'm wrong, if you can provide proof.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:


If you think this is all wrong, please link me a rule that defines how Teamwork Feats always require teamwork.
If it's just a supposition, then you should also assume that Combat Feats can only be used in combat, which is not the case obviously.

They generally require an ally to be carefully positioned on the battlefield as well as possess the feat. The inquisitor can bypass the ally having the feat, but not the positioning.

Quote:
Teamwork feats grant large bonuses, but they only function under specific circumstances. In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield. Teamwork feats provide no bonus if the listed conditions are not met. Note that allies who are paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act do not count for the purposes of these feats.

They probably should have said another ally except for specific cases. I will start an FAQ on it in a few minutes.

Quote:
Solo Tactics (Ex): At 3rd level, all of the inquisitor's allies are treated as if they possessed the same teamwork feats as the inquisitor for the purpose of determining whether the inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats. Her allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they actually possess the feats themselves. The allies' positioning and actions must still meet the prerequisites listed in the teamwork feat for the inquisitor to receive the listed bonus.

That is basically giving you the general case. I am not going to try to convince you of how what the general intent is, but this "always an ally, no matter what" has come up before, and I will try to get the PDT to give a better answer, at least for teamwork feats.


Click here for the FAQ

If you think it can be worded better let me know before 1 hour passes.

PS: Post the suggested wording in the linked thread.


- A FAQ isn't a rule so you don't need to prove specific to over rule it case by case.
- It is pretty clear by the text of teamwork feats that you need more than one person with the feat to take advantage of this. "most of the time" is there however so I would rule that any feat which specifically says it can be used solo can be. This doesn't say it can be used solo.

RAW seems clear that it CAN'T be used solo.

That being said I would allow it to be used solo for a single attack only against any enemy unaware of your use of this tactic ahead of time. BUT that is simply GM fiat Not RAW. Why would I allow it? Because it's cool.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

...

unintentional RAI
...

"unintentional rules as intended"

?????

it was intentional because I knew the wording gave away the absurdity of it all. You don't intend that spells can ever hurt bunnies, well there's a feat that let's ranged weapons hurt bunnies and some spells are ranged weapons, so you unintentionally intend for some spells to be able to hurt bunnies, even though you intended for only bow to be able.


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:


Here are the questions:

- If you count as your own ally, do you get to make an AoO when you get attacked?

- If you are attacked multiple times and you have Combat Reflexes, do you get multiple AoOs?

- Can the enemy forego the bonus in order to not provoke AoOs?

Do you get to make an AoO when attacked:

Per RAW, it's questionable, RAI is ambiguous. Personally, I do no see a problem with this particular interpretation of the rules, as it isn't particularly outrageous. Or even conceptually unsound: there are quite a few actions that you can make that can cause another to provoke an attack of opportunity.

By the wording of the feat, you do not get an attack of opportunity if they attack you multiple times. The feat states ...until your opponent attacks you... which by my interpretation means until it's first attack, not for all his attacks.

Yes, if the enemy knows of this tactic, it can forego the bonus in order to not provoke.

The text of the feat says: If that opponent attacks you with this bonus,... it does not say that the opponent is required to attack you with that bonus.


I don't think the opponent has the option of not taking the bonus. The bonus is due to you being reckless. It is like if we are fighting and you stick your chin out.

"you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack "

Basically you are giving the bonus out. So if he swings the bonus is in play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

I don't think the opponent has the option of not taking the bonus. The bonus is due to you being reckless. It is like if we are fighting and you stick your chin out.

"you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack "

Basically you are giving the bonus out. So if he swings the bonus is in play.

I'd say that's a solid interpretation. But there is this: if you stick your chin out, do I have to target your chin. What if I attack your knee?

Sadly, the wording doesn't specifically state that the opponent has the option of attacking you without the bonus.

It could go either way.


Quintain wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I don't think the opponent has the option of not taking the bonus. The bonus is due to you being reckless. It is like if we are fighting and you stick your chin out.

"you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack "

Basically you are giving the bonus out. So if he swings the bonus is in play.

I'd say that's a solid interpretation. But there is this: if you stick your chin out, do I have to target your chin. What if I attack your knee?

Sadly, the wording doesn't specifically state that the opponent has the option of attacking you without the bonus.

It could go either way.

I am sure you know that was just an analogy, but to be remove the analogy. You intentionally make yourself easier to hit and damage.


I agree on the analogy, it was a strong one. However, even with the analogy removed, what the feat is doing is not just intentionally making yourself easier to hit, it is "baiting" the enemy to strike you in a way you can predict and riposte (the AoO part). -- Presuming of course that you allow for the single-user-teamwork option for this feat.

I don't see where the enemy is required to take that bait. It could instead attack you in an unpredictable way (foregoing the attack bonus, but still attacking), and not get the resulting riposte.

As a GM, I could see where an opposed bluff check might be in order to see if the enemy takes the bait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just thinking about the potential exploits of this feat:

If your enemy attacks before you, and you attack him using this feat, granting him the +2, and he doesn't want to suffer the AoO, this pretty much prevents him from attacking you at all. You just have to re-attack him on your turn and grant him the +2 bonus, and he will be required to attack something else or take not only the regular attack(s), but the AoO every round as well.

If you attack last out of all opponents and use something like greater cleave, you could prevent all of them from attacking you in the same way, or you would get an AoO from every one of your opponents, potentially giving you up to 8+ attacks of opportunity, even more with reach, every round.

I'm thinking that this is not the intended effect of the designers of the feat.

If you can stack allies in the same square in some fashion, it gets just as ridiculous. Although this would require some doing (Ratfolk). == Ouch. Two ratfolk rogues with this feat would not only get a massive number of attacks of opportunity, they would be considered flanking as well, automatically. Pack flanking would also allow for this, I think.

Having a bluff check or the option for the enemy to forego the bonus but still attack prevents this exploit.


I see it as you pretending by actually making yourself easier to hit on purpose, but I can't prove it.

This might be worth an FAQ also. :)


wraithstrike wrote:

I see it as you pretending by actually making yourself easier to hit on purpose, but I can't prove it.

This might be worth an FAQ also. :)

Oh, I agree. This could go either way. Swarming ratfolk rogues with this feat is a pretty awesome combination.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, the feat lets you do it by yourself; it doesn't even need other people with the feat nearby to make it work. It just lets them get in on the AoO, presumably because they know how this sneaky tactic works, having done it themselves.

Seeing as how this is a teamwork feat that doesn't require allies with the same feat to even work, my GM ruling would be that this is a case where you counting as your own ally would make sense. Others with the feat make it more useful.

If the feat had text saying you could only do this with an ally adjacent to/flanking your target, then it wouldn't work with just yourself.


Most people are not going to let themselves get attack just to get a +2 to attack and damage. If the person can ignore the bonus and attack anyway the feat does not get used as much, and it drives the value down so I am hoping the attack and damage can not be ignored.

I will create an FAQ a little later.


Teamwork feats only work with another ally with the feat.

Quote:


In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield.

You have the feat, and your ally (which is you), also has the feat - is nonsensical.

I have a peanut butter sandwich, and I also have a peanut butter sandwich.

Note also, that it is not saying "In most cases there must be another ally with the feat". It is "In most cases there must be another ally with the feat who is positioned carefully on the battlefield."

The in most cases clause is a reference to the battlefield positioning - which becomes self-evident when you read the crunch of many of the teamwork feats.


bbangerter wrote:
Note also, that it is not saying "In most cases there must be another ally with the feat". It is "In most cases there must be another ally with the feat who is positioned carefully on the battlefield."

Cool, tha phrase is about positioning. I can agree.

Now please link the rule that says that you always need an ally to use teamwork feats, because I cannot find it.


Link to FAQ asking if you can avoid Broken Wing Gambit by not accepting the +2 to attacks and damage


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Note also, that it is not saying "In most cases there must be another ally with the feat". It is "In most cases there must be another ally with the feat who is positioned carefully on the battlefield."

Cool, tha phrase is about positioning. I can agree.

Now please link the rule that says that you always need an ally to use teamwork feats, because I cannot find it.

Definition of the word 'also':

"in addition; too."

An "ally who also possesses the feat" cannot be yourself. You have the feat. You don't also have the feat. You either have the feat or you don't have the feat. Also, in this context, of necessity implies more than 1 person having the feat.

I have a peanut butter sandwich, and I also have a peanut butter sandwich - is nonsensical.

I have the X teamwork feat, and I also have the X teamwork feat makes even less sense. Technically you might have been saying you have two peanut butter sandwiches in the above in the most confusing way possible, but you can't take teamwork feats twice.

Now, how about you cite the rule that explains why we should ignore the "...or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible" portion of the FAQ in this scenario?


The separation you're operating in that sentence is arbitrary and nonsensical.

If it's as you say,

"in most cases you need an ally (who also have the feat) to be positioned carefully"

This is logically and linguistically equivalent to:

"In some cases, you don't need an ally (who also have to feat) to be positioned carefully"

This does NOT also imply you need an ally with the feat to begin with.


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
The separation you're operating over the need of an ally and the positioning is arbitrary and nonsensical. At this point honestly it's like playing chess with a pidgeon.

/shrug

If you want to insist it applies to needing an ally with the feat (in most cases) we can go down that route as well.

Please list all the teamwork feats that state "you don't need another ally to also have the feat". Those are the ones that don't fall under the 'in most cases' clause. All the rest of them do.

EDIT:

Quote:


Learn basic logic, please.

Be civil please. My logic is actually quite sound and good - its part of my job description and its payed me very well over the years.

EDIT2: Its a case of reading for contextual understanding, realizing that English is a very flexible (and imprecise) language, and not reading it and insisting it can only have one meaning - the context (teamwork feats) tells you the correct meaning.


"To eat Spaghetti, in most cases you need fork a fork that also is green to be held in your hand"

This cannot possibly mean that you are never allowed to eat spaghetti without a green fork nearby.

Why do I even have to explain this?

EDIT:
No, your reading of that sentence is just plain wrong. You are bending language beyond its possible limits.


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

"To eat Spaghetti, in most cases you need fork a fork who also is green to be held in your hand"

Please fix the grammar. I can't parse that sentence well enough to be sure what your following comments are quite driving at. I can guess, but its not entirely clear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you were looking for an analogy, would have been more precise to say: in order to eat spaghetti, in most cases you also need spaghetti.

As others have said already, even though you count as an ally to yourself, the Feats in the Teamwork section require 'another' ally than yourself in order to work out.

What you imply with your interpretation of the Feat is that you do not need, in most cases, at least two allies with the given Feat in order to work, and this is where we do not agree; we think that any specific Teamwork Feat that requires no other allies than yourself would specify that condition on its description with a sentence such as: this Teamwork Feat does not require another ally to work out.

We think that because our interpretation of the word "Teamwork" and the sentence "In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield."

---

To put it in other words, lets take the Combat Medic Teamwork Feat. That Feat allows its use on a paralyzed, stunned, unconscious ally, which normally, you can not. If we interpret Teamwork Feats as you do, which is that you do not necessarily need another ally other than yourself if not specified in the Teamwork Feat description, then, by thus, if you are paralyzed by a venom, you could use Combat Medic on yourself just to treat the poison and remove the paralysis, or even if you are unconscious due negative HP, you could First Aid yourself, since, the Combat Medic Feat specifically says that you can use it on allies that are unconscious as long as they have the Feat.

You must understand that if this sounds absurd to you, the way we understand "in most cases...an ally who also..." makes us think that your interpretation of the necessity or its absence of another ally for the rest of Teamwork Feats is absurd as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It occurs to me that the "in most cases" applies to specific positioning on the battlefield NOT to needing an ally as D@rK-SePHiRoTH- contends.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
"To eat Spaghetti, in most cases you need fork a fork that also is green to be held in your hand"

parsed into proper english:

In most cases, you need to hold, in your hand, a green fork, to eat spaghetti.

like jesus this is hard to understand even in proper english. SO MUCH SUPERFLUOUS LANGUAGE.

At it's most simple:

You need a green fork to eat spaghetti.

having only now looked up the exact wording of the original sentence.

"In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield"

so my initial reading of this makes me feel the whole sentence is pointless. It's like "read the feat to see what it does".

To use these feats you must have an ally correctly positioned with the same feat on the battlefield.

there. now that it is proper English can we move on.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
It occurs to me that the "in most cases" applies to specific positioning on the battlefield NOT to needing an ally as D@rK-SePHiRoTH- contends.

not really, I can't think of a feat that doesn't have something at least along the lines of can see or hear the ally. Most need them to either threaten an enemy or some such...

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
I am only interested in the most technically verifiable interpretation when it's about rules.

Then you will be continually disappointed when FAQs, errata, and the majority of GMs instead come down in favor of precedent, real world logic, and common sense.

The rulebooks were not written as computer code. Interpreting them as if they were is thus inherently erroneous. You wish to follow a set of standards we know to be wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Based on the wording of the feat, I think that this may indeed allow you to get the Attack of Opportunity.

Quote:
If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.

Forget for a second whether your opponent has a choice to attack you with or without the bonus, but instead focus on the second part of the sentence:

it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.

As an example, if you have two allies with this feat for a total of 3, if you give your opponent the +2, and he attacks you (with that +2), it provokes attacks of opportunity from all people that have this feat -- all your allies.

If the 'you are your own ally' condition holds, you should also get an attack of opportunity.

However, teamwork feats typically require more than one ally to work -- so that requirement (if it exists in this case) is not waived.

The potential for this feat is quite frankly, astounding. This is haste-in-a-feat. Especially if you have a method for compelling someone to focus on a specific defender.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
I am only interested in the most technically verifiable interpretation when it's about rules.

Then you will be continually disappointed when FAQs, errata, and the majority of GMs instead come down in favor of precedent, real world logic, and common sense.

The rulebooks were not written as computer code. Interpreting them as if they were is thus inherently erroneous. You wish to follow a set of standards we know to be wrong.

while I don't disagree with what you're saying, I feel the need to point out, because of the nature of it not being computer code, there isn't really any wrong way to interpret a sentence.

To be clear, a FAQ response or a line in the book only holds as much power over the game is played as the GM allows it. The Paizo team aren't universally powerful with how people play their game.

At best we can only really argue how paizo thinks it should work.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Quintain wrote:

Based on the wording of the feat, I think that this may indeed allow you to get the Attack of Opportunity.

Quote:
If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.

Forget for a second whether your opponent has a choice to attack you with or without the bonus, but instead focus on the second part of the sentence:

it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.

As an example, if you have two allies with this feat for a total of 3, if you give your opponent the +2, and he attacks you (with that +2), it provokes attacks of opportunity from all people that have this feat -- all your allies.

If the 'you are your own ally' condition holds, you should also get an attack of opportunity.

However, teamwork feats typically require more than one ally to work -- so that requirement (if it exists in this case) is not waived.

The potential for this feat is quite frankly, astounding. This is haste-in-a-feat. Especially if you have a method for compelling someone to focus on a specific defender.

i'm making this a seperate post so it don't get swelled up in whatever the above post makes.

So, if all your allies that threaten this opponent all use the feat, the enemy either decides not to attack and run, or to attack.

It doesn't really give him many options.

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:
At best we can only really argue how paizo thinks it should work.

True, but given that they are the people who write the rulebooks, 'how they think it should work' will have the advantage of vastly greater consistency with FAQs, errata, future rules... and how the game is likely to be played at the majority of tables. To the extent that there are 'Pathfinder rules' as opposed to 'house rules'... those rules are the 'how Paizo thinks it should work' set.


Bandw2 wrote:


..... 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.


Bandw2 wrote:

i'm making this a seperate post so it don't get swelled up in whatever the above post makes.

So, if all your allies that threaten this opponent all use the feat, the enemy either decides not to attack and run, or to attack.

It doesn't really give him many options.

The lack of options is why I'm inclined to allow the enemy to attack without the +2, as attack and get destroyed via all threatening allies or not attack -- and if the allies are smart, all of them are using this feat when attacking the opponent, so any attack on the allies as a group triggers AoOs from everyone, regardless of who the enemy attacks.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


..... 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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


..... 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.


Quintain wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

i'm making this a seperate post so it don't get swelled up in whatever the above post makes.

So, if all your allies that threaten this opponent all use the feat, the enemy either decides not to attack and run, or to attack.

It doesn't really give him many options.

The lack of options is why I'm inclined to allow the enemy to attack without the +2, as attack and get destroyed via all threatening allies or not attack -- and if the allies are smart, all of them are using this feat when attacking the opponent, so any attack on the allies as a group triggers AoOs from everyone, regardless of who the enemy attacks.

1) If its one enemy, against 3+ attackers, and they all hit in order to activate broken wing gambit, and the enemy isn't dead, they may very well be in trouble. Most 1 vs many fights that are 'cr balanced' are so one sided for the many though that this is a minor issue anyway, so having limited options isn't really that important a factor here.

2) Option one: 5' step to where you would only be in range of one enemy, then attack.

3) Option two: Assuming many vs many instead of many vs one, take a break that round, 5' step back, let your allies deal with the opponents for a round.

4) Lack of options isn't a reason to rule one way or another. Being nauseated is an extremely limiting condition. That isn't a reason to rule differently on how the condition works. If an entire party commits to spending feats on this, they should get the advantage out of doing so rather than a GM arbitrarily make their feat selection useless.

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:

Amplified Rage wrote:


Whenever you are raging and ... flanking the same opponent as a raging ally with this feat.
Brutal Grappler wrote:


When you and an ally with this feat have grappled the same creature...
Callous Casting wrote:


You initiate this feat by including an abetting ally...
Combat Medic wrote:


Whenever you use Heal to provide first aid, treat caltrop wounds, or treat poison on an ally who also has this feat...
Coordinated Distraction wrote:


When you and at least one ally with this feat threaten the same enemy...

I could go on, but those should be sufficient to illustrate.

1 to 50 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / "broken wing gambit" "own ally" "combat reflexes" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.