Broken Wing Gambit and not being counter attacked

[wraithstrike]

In another thread there was a discussion on Broken Wing Gambit.

Broken Wing Gambit wrote:

Prerequisite: Bluff 5 ranks.
Benefit: Whenever you make a melee attack and hit your opponent, you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against you until the end of your next turn or until your opponent attacks you, whichever happens first. If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.

It was brought up that there with reference to the bolded area that there is a possibility the opponent may choose to attack without accepting the +2 bonus, meaning BWG(Broken Wing Gambit) would not be in play.

Another reading is that whoever has BWG is granting the bonus automatically by putting themselves in harm's way so if someone swings the feat automatically activates.

FAQ Question below:
Can the attacker avoid being subjected to Broken Wing Gambit, and therefore the attacks of opportunity by not taking the +2 to attack and damage?

[wraithstrike]

shameless bump

[dragonhunterq]

I have ruled previously that using the +2 was optional for the opponent, but after reading some of the comments elsewhere I think I may have to change my stance.
Still nothing is forcing the opponent to attack you though even if the +2 is enforceable.

[Saethori]

The bonus is forced. You are granting them a bonus, not the ability to use one. And unless an effect says otherwise, such as the skald's raging song, you are not allowed by the rules to decline a bonus you are receiving (unless you can make a save against it), even if, for whatever reason, you can benefit from not accepting it.

The opponent has two options that round:
-Attack you with the +2 bonus, and risk the counterattack.
-Not attack you. (which may include attacking someone else, not attacking at all, casting a spell, fleeing, etc.)

[wraithstrike]

That is how I see it too. Hopefully they errata the feat to make it clear that the bonus is not optional if my observation is correct.

[N N 959]

Saethori wrote:

The bonus is forced. You are granting them a bonus, not the ability to use one. And unless an effect says otherwise, such as the skald's raging song, you are not allowed by the rules to decline a bonus you are receiving (unless you can make a save against it), even if, for whatever reason, you can benefit from not accepting it.

The opponent has two options that round:
-Attack you with the +2 bonus, and risk the counterattack.
-Not attack you. (which may include attacking someone else, not attacking at all, casting a spell, fleeing, etc.)

But it's not that simple. The target is feigning vulnerability. It's entirely reasonable to give the attacker:

1. An opportunity to identify the subterfuge; and

2. An opportunity to attack in a way that avoids being victimized by the subterfuge.

The real fundamental question, however is whether the attacker is aware that the target is going to be easier to hit before the attacker attacks. The problem with warning the attacker, is of course, the attacker will know that they are being set up, OOC for certain and possibly IC.

So how do we make this feat usable without it conveying actionable OOC information, plausible IC information but preserving the roleplay of the feat?

IMO, the simplest thing is to require a Sense Motive check aided by the attackers BAB. The more experienced you are at fighting, the more likely you're going to spot someone using a gambit. What's the DC? Feat user's BAB + CHR + Bluff? However, I imagine it is highly unlikely the PDT will want to add any other mechanics to the feat.

Still, the PDT should tell us if the attacker is allowed to spot the vulnerability/know that they attack will be easier.

[CBDunkerson]

I probably wouldn't allow an opponent a check to detect the 'AoO potential' unless the players made this a regular part of their strategy.

For example, a five person party with a Holy Tactician paladin granting the entire group this feat could get nasty. Attack any one of them after the first round and a BBEG could be inviting four AoOs.

Really messy? What happens when the BBEG uses something like Whirlwind Attack on a party with this feat, Combat Reflexes, and high dex;

'Ha! You fools think you have me surrounded! I will strike all five of you at once!'
*Twenty AoOs ensue*

[N N 959]

Then the feat description should be modified. It should be presented as the feat user taking -2 to AC in order to obtain an AoO. It should be declared after the feat user has been targeted for an attack but before the dice are rolled.

[Rub-Eta]

I'm pretty sure that "If that opponent attacks you with this bonus" is supposed to indicate that it needs to be before the end of your next turn, while it has the +2 bonus, and not just whenever.

[GinoA]

CBDunkerson wrote:

For example, a five person party with a Holy Tactician paladin granting the entire group this feat could get nasty. Attack any one of them after the first round and a BBEG could be inviting four AoOs.

Really messy? What happens when the BBEG uses something like Whirlwind Attack on a party with this feat, Combat Reflexes, and high dex;

'Ha! You fools think you have me surrounded! I will strike all five of you at once!'
*Twenty AoOs ensue*

I'd give one AoO per party-member.

Broken Wing Gambit wrote:

Benefit: Whenever you make a melee attack and hit your opponent, you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against you until the end of your next turn or until your opponent attacks you, whichever happens first. If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.

[ZZTRaider]

GinoA wrote:

I'd give one AoO per party-member.

I think the point is that all 5 characters are actively using Broken Wing Gambit and all 5 get hit by Whirlwind Attack, activating Broken Wing Gambit 5 separate times due to attacks on different characters.

[CBDunkerson]

ZZTRaider wrote:

GinoA wrote:

I'd give one AoO per party-member.

I think the point is that all 5 characters are actively using Broken Wing Gambit and all 5 get hit by Whirlwind Attack, activating Broken Wing Gambit 5 separate times due to attacks on different characters.

Yep. Each party member hit allows the other four to get an AoO. Five party members * four AoOs each = 20 AoOs total.

Difficult situation to set up, but one of VERY few cases of multiplicative growth in Pathfinder.

[Kifaru]

Throw paired opportunists in the mix and I think you would theoretically have 100 AoOs.

Outflank in this situation could easily generate a 100 more.

In reality, maybe a dozen of those attacks go off and the BBEG is smoked.

No one should worry about this being too powerful. The group should be congratulated for working as a team and coordinating their efforts.

[CBDunkerson]

Since each action can only provoke once I don't think Paired Opportunist or Outflank would provide another AoO for the four characters already getting one. However, Paired Opportunist would allow the character actually attacked to get an AoO, as would Outflank if one of the other four characters scored a critical hit. Thus, in my five character example you could go from 20 AoOs to 25... but not 100.

[Kifaru]

You may have a point.

It depends on if whirlwind attack is considered an attack against each opponent or if it's just considered a single attack that damages all adjacent foes. The second interpretation is probably the most accurate, so in that case you would be right.

If it was the first interpretation, paired opportunists would indeed cause the AoOs to cascade out to a total of 100, I think.

[ZZTRaider]

Well, you make a separate attack roll against each target. I'd say that makes them discrete attacks against each opponent.

[Kifaru]

Hmmm. Then I will go back to my original assertion of 100 AoOs.

[Kifaru]

But that would require each opponent to have combat reflexes and a Dex of 28.

[Quintain]

Kifaru wrote:

But that would require each opponent to have combat reflexes and a Dex of 28.

Granted, but they would still be maxing out their attacks of opporunity on a single target.

Quote:

'Ha! You fools think you have me surrounded! I will strike all five of you at once!'
*Twenty AoOs ensue*

Not only that, but twenty smite-evil enhanced attacks of opportunity.

[Kifaru]

Wait. I messed up. They would all need a Dex of 48 to get to 100 AoOs.

The 20 AoOs would require a fairly reasonable Dex of 16.

[Derklord]

CBDunkerson wrote:

Difficult situation to set up, but one of VERY few cases of multiplicative growth in Pathfinder.

Are there any good SM monsters with Combat Expertise? Because the whole thing just screams for a Monster Tactician summoning multiple monsters around the enemy.

[CBDunkerson]

Kifaru wrote:

Hmmm. Then I will go back to my original assertion of 100 AoOs.

I'm not following.

Assume 5 party members with Broken Wing Gambit, Paired Opportunists, Combat Reflexes, and infinite Dex. All 5 have activated Broken Wing Gambit.

BBEG attacks and hits PC 1
PCs 2 - 5 get an AoO from PC 1s Broken Wing Gambit
PC 1 gets an AoO from Paired Opportunists with any one of PCs 2 - 5

PC 1 does NOT get FOUR AoO (one from each of PCs 2 - 5) because you only get one AoO per triggering action. The triggering action in this case is BBEG's attack on PC 1.

BBEG then goes on to hit each of the remaining PCs and thus triggers four more times... getting five AoOs in response each time as above. 25 AoO total.

Also, Combat Reflexes allows Dex mod + 1 AoOs... so to make 5 AoOs in a round a character would need 18 Dex, and to make 100 they would need 208 Dex (i.e. Dex = 2 * [AoOs - 1] + 10).

[Rysky]

And the man in the back said everyone attack!

[Kifaru]

You are completely right. This is what I get for not diagramming it out and attempting to miltitask. In that situation it is 25 AoOs.

Though, the dex scores I referenced should be right. To get the original 20 AoOs would require only 16 Dex from all five allies. To get 100 AoOs out of 5 allies would require a +19 Dex modifier from each. So 48 Dex.

[Malkin the Magician]

I would use the rules for identifying feats and class abilities in one of the recent companions (I can't remember which one for the life of me). If the target identifies the fighting style he will not take the +2 because he knows it is a trap. If he does not identify it he will attempt the get the bonus once or twice.