How many attacks and when does it stop? (AoO)


Rules Questions


I've got an ankylosaurus with my hunter. Using outflank and pack flanking he actually hits once in a while. (They aren't good fighters at my level but he's a rescue pet so shush)

Ok so what happens when

1) I get paired opportunists and get a crit?
2) one of those is a crit?
3) one of those is?

How many attacks do we each get at the start from the AoO and how far will it go?
How many does the initial one get that is to those feats?

I need to know before I go into this.

Warning I may add broken wing gambit.

Quote:


Outflank
In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally

Paired opportunists

Whenever you are adjacent to an ally who also has this feat, you receive a +4 circumstance bonus on attacks of opportunity against creatures that you both threaten. Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity). This does not allow you to take more than one attack of opportunity against a creature for a given action.


Your initial crit will provoke 2 AoOs - 1 from outflank by the one who didn't inflict the crit and 1 from paired opportunists by the one who crit.

Every crit thereafter provokes 2 more AoO's in similar fashion until you fail to crit or run out of AoO's - don't forget you only get 1+dex mod (assuming you have combat reflexes)

Keep an eye out for a menacing amulet of mighty fists - it will help with accuracy, especially once you get pack flank


I was thinking menacing but with paired opportunists giving 4 on AoO I think money is better spent on fortuitous. Which would give me a chance on one more shot. Basically I want to crit and take a crap tonne of extra attacks. Fortuitous is only one a round... but I'll take It!

And yes. I have combat reflexes.


Cavall wrote:

I've got an ankylosaurus with my hunter. Using outflank and pack flanking he actually hits once in a while. (They aren't good fighters at my level but he's a rescue pet so shush)

Ok so what happens when

1) I get paired opportunists and get a crit?

If you and your pet both have Outflank and Paired Opportunist, and if you achieve Flanking, then if one of you gets a Crit, the other gets an Attack of Opportunity because the first gets a Crit. And since you both also have Paired Opportunist, the first gets an Attack of Opportunity because the partner got an Attack of Opportunity.

Cavall wrote:
2) one of those is a crit?

The 2nd Crit is a 2nd AoO trigger. It will trigger AoOs from both of you again.

Cavall wrote:
3) one of those is?

If you keep critting, you will keep cascading attacks of opportunity for as long as your Combat Reflexes holds out. That's a big if, though. If you and your Animal Companion are do truly blessed by the Dice Gods, then nothing can deny you.

Cavall wrote:
Warning I may add broken wing gambit.

Broken Wing Gambit is a separate Attack of Opportunity trigger, and a very sensitive one at that. Basically, if either of you is attacked, then both of you will get Attacks of Opportunity. Technically, you don't even need Paired Opportunist to get that effect off of Broken Wing Gambit. There is an FAQ that specifies that you count as your own Ally. Even if you didn't have another member on your Team that also had Broken Wing Gambit, you, per RAW, are entitled to an AoO, whenever you are attacked. But you are planning on taking Paired Opportunist anyway, so you are good even if your GM is requiring it.


Everyone quoting that FAQ always forgets the key bit:

FAQ wrote:
unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible.

Broken Wing Gambit (well, all teamwork feats for that matter - IMO) falls foul of the 'would make no sense' clause.

Dark Archive

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Cavall wrote:

I've got an ankylosaurus with my hunter. Using outflank and pack flanking he actually hits once in a while. (They aren't good fighters at my level but he's a rescue pet so shush)

Ok so what happens when

1) I get paired opportunists and get a crit?

If you and your pet both have Outflank and Paired Opportunist, and if you achieve Flanking, then if one of you gets a Crit, the other gets an Attack of Opportunity because the first gets a Crit. And since you both also have Paired Opportunist, the first gets an Attack of Opportunity because the partner got an Attack of Opportunity.

Cavall wrote:
2) one of those is a crit?

The 2nd Crit is a 2nd AoO trigger. It will trigger AoOs from both of you again.

Cavall wrote:
3) one of those is?

If you keep critting, you will keep cascading attacks of opportunity for as long as your Combat Reflexes holds out. That's a big if, though. If you and your Animal Companion are do truly blessed by the Dice Gods, then nothing can deny you.

Cavall wrote:
Warning I may add broken wing gambit.

Broken Wing Gambit is a separate Attack of Opportunity trigger, and a very sensitive one at that. Basically, if either of you is attacked, then both of you will get Attacks of Opportunity. Technically, you don't even need Paired Opportunist to get that effect off of Broken Wing Gambit. There is an FAQ that specifies that you count as your own Ally. Even if you didn't have another member on your Team that also had Broken Wing Gambit, you, per RAW, are entitled to an AoO, whenever you are attacked. But you are planning on taking Paired Opportunist anyway, so you are good even if your GM is requiring it.

Ally: Do you count as your own ally?

You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible

Grand Lodge

Mark does not think counting as your own ally for teamwork feats matter because it does not work for another reason.

This is one of several times it comes up and his answers are consistent.

The title of the teamwork feat section is teamwork feats.

Teamwork is defined as the combined action of a group of people, especially when effective and efficient.

Titles apply to everything below them.

If ignoring 50% of the title of a section is required to justify an interpretation of a rule it's probable not a strong justification. If you have to ignore the entire premises of a game sub-system it is also likely to fall under no sense or impossible.

You can be your own ally but you can't be two people which is required for teamwork. Unless your a wizard and make a simulacrum.


Name Violation wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Cavall wrote:

I've got an ankylosaurus with my hunter. Using outflank and pack flanking he actually hits once in a while. (They aren't good fighters at my level but he's a rescue pet so shush)

Ok so what happens when

1) I get paired opportunists and get a crit?

If you and your pet both have Outflank and Paired Opportunist, and if you achieve Flanking, then if one of you gets a Crit, the other gets an Attack of Opportunity because the first gets a Crit. And since you both also have Paired Opportunist, the first gets an Attack of Opportunity because the partner got an Attack of Opportunity.

Cavall wrote:
2) one of those is a crit?

The 2nd Crit is a 2nd AoO trigger. It will trigger AoOs from both of you again.

Cavall wrote:
3) one of those is?

If you keep critting, you will keep cascading attacks of opportunity for as long as your Combat Reflexes holds out. That's a big if, though. If you and your Animal Companion are do truly blessed by the Dice Gods, then nothing can deny you.

Cavall wrote:
Warning I may add broken wing gambit.

Broken Wing Gambit is a separate Attack of Opportunity trigger, and a very sensitive one at that. Basically, if either of you is attacked, then both of you will get Attacks of Opportunity. Technically, you don't even need Paired Opportunist to get that effect off of Broken Wing Gambit. There is an FAQ that specifies that you count as your own Ally. Even if you didn't have another member on your Team that also had Broken Wing Gambit, you, per RAW, are entitled to an AoO, whenever you are attacked. But you are planning on taking Paired Opportunist anyway, so you are good even if your GM is requiring it.

Ally: Do you count as your own ally?

You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible

Yes.


dragonhunterq wrote:

Everyone quoting that FAQ always forgets the key bit:

FAQ wrote:
unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible.
Broken Wing Gambit (well, all teamwork feats for that matter - IMO) falls foul of the 'would make no sense' clause.

2 things:

1) No, it doesn't.
2) The OP is already planning on taking Paired Opportunist.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Everyone quoting that FAQ always forgets the key bit:

No. I did not forget. It is simply false that the simple fact that Broken Wing Gambit is a Teamwork Feat means that it "falls foul of the 'would make no sense' clause."

This is a commonly held misconception.

Grandlounge wrote:
Mark does not think you count as your own ally for teamwork feats.

As Grandlounge is pointing out, even game designers like Mark Seifter fall victim to this misconception.

But

Mark Seifter Designer wrote:
"...these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat"

Mark Seifter is misquoting the rules.

Everyone quoting that Ultimate Combat description of Teamwork Feats "always forgets the key bit."

Ultimate Combat wrote:
In most cases, these feats require an ally with the same feat.

In most cases means not in all cases.

google, definition of most wrote:
superlative of many, much.
google, definition of all wrote:
used to refer to the whole quantity

The fact that the rules say "In most cases," means that not in "the whole quantity" of cases do Teamwork Feats require an ally with the same Feat. And that means the rules allow for 1 or more exceptions. I assert that I found one.

Broken Wing Gambit wrote:
it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.

Do you count as your own ally?

Core Rulebook FAQ wrote:

Ally: Do you count as your own ally?

You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."

"it provokes attacks of opportunity from ["you and your allies"] who have this feat" does not make no sense, nor is impossible simply based on the text of the Feat.

The fact that it's a Teamwork Feat does not mean it is either nonsensical or impossible: the rules just don't say that. Do they? Do you have other evidence?

Mark Seifter was quoted as misquoting the rules: That was not an Offical Rules Post changing the rules. If he does change the rules, that's another matter. In the meanwhile though, customers of Paizo Publishing have the right to demand that Mark Seifter and everyone else at Paizo Publishing obey the rules that they made or that they change them to.

Meanwhile, in addition to being factually mistaken, your objections are irrelevant to what the OP wants to do. The OP already has an Ally who would be taking this Feat: his Dinosaur Animal Companion. And he is already considering taking Paired Opportunist for himself and for his companion. Even if everything you were saying is correct, the most that means is that the OP has to take 2 Feats he was planning on taking anyway instead of just 1. Not even: the OP was planning on taking Paired Opportunist anyway even if he wasn't going to take Broken Wing Gambit.


For what its worth I wouldn't plan on doing something where I'm my own ally. I consider that FAQ mostly for spells and things, not teamwork feats. So it's moot, now, for 2 reasons and we can move on.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Mark Seifter Designer wrote:
"...these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat"

Mark Seifter is misquoting the rules.

Everyone quoting that Ultimate Combat description of Teamwork Feats "always forgets the key bit."

Ultimate Combat wrote:
In most cases, these feats require an ally with the same feat.
In most cases means not in all cases.

Oh, so Mark Seifter is misquoting the rules? Everyone quoting the description of Teamwork Feats forgets the key bit?

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.

Nice punctuation you added there. It almost made it seem as if you posted the whole sentence.

Pot.


Wonderstell wrote:
Oh, so Mark Seifter is misquoting the rules?

Yes, he did.

I proved conclusively that he did misquote the rules in a material way that made his argument, dragonhunterq's argument, and Grandlounges argument invalid in the face of what the rules really say.

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.
Wonderstell wrote:
Nice punctuation you added there. It almost made it seem as if you posted the whole sentence.

I did put that period there where it did not belong. I am sorry.

But I don't see how adding the rest of the sentence takes away from my argument in any material way. "In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield." It still says, "In most cases," which still makes it mean "not in all cases." And it still means that the simple fact that Broken Wing Gambit is a Teamwork Feat can not be used to invoke the impossible-or-makes-no-sense clause.

So, what is your point?

And,

Cavall wrote:
For what its worth I wouldn't plan on doing something where I'm my own ally.

What possible relevance it have to this thread?


I don't understand the question, but it doesn't matter as
A) I have an ally. He shares my teamwork feats
B) I will have paired opportunists
C) I don't think teamwork feats that require someone to "also" have it are in any way keeping inside the rules of being your own ally unless it's impossible. To me, that falls under the impossible part, and my group agrees

So for multiple reasons, it's moot.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Wonderstell wrote:
Nice punctuation you added there. It almost made it seem as if you posted the whole sentence.

I did put that period there where it did not belong. I am sorry.

But I don't see how adding the rest of the sentence takes away from my argument in any material way. "In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield." It still says, "In most cases," which still makes it mean "not in all cases." And it still means that the simple fact that Broken Wing Gambit is a Teamwork Feat can not be used to invoke the impossible-or-makes-no-sense clause.

So, what is your point?

My point is that you're reading that sentence with the objective of finding proof of your claim. If someone reads the whole sentence without that idea already planted in their head, they would reach a different conclusion. So when you only provide the first part of the sentence which you see as proof, you're actively preventing discussion. Especially so when you misquote.

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

If any other person read this with the idea that "teamwork feats requires an ally with the feat", then they would come to the conclusion that 'In most cases' refers to the later part of the sentence, the part about positioning.

********************

I've had this discussion before, and I'm just at a loss at how to convince you that you can't use teamwork feats by yourself. So please be honest with me here.

Do you seriously not feel that your interpretation of teamwork feats is counter to what teamwork feats are supposed to be?

If you hadn't read the FAQ, would you ever have come to the conclusion that you could use Broken Wing Gambit without another ally?

Do you believe it was intended for Broken Wing Gambit to be used without another ally? How about Target of Opportunity?

Do you recognize that even though it is possible to reach your conclusion, it may not be correct at all?


Considering most teamwork feats require an adjacent ally, it's pretty silly anyways


Wonderstell wrote:
My point is that you're reading that sentence with the objective of finding proof of your claim.

My motivations have nothing to do with the validity of my argument. I am giving my best advice in good faith according to what the rules say. I did not read the text to find proof of my claim. I arrived at the truth by reading the text. And I am faithfully reporting on it.

Anyway, I did find proof of my claim.

You haven't made any claim. You have offered no proof of your non-claim. All you are doing is trying to make something out of a cosmetic editing error. You have done nothing to demonstrate that the information you have brought in any way diminishes my claim or supports any claim at all. You are doing nothing but attacking me.

And you are derailing the thread by debating a point that the OP has already said has nothing to do with his build.


Scott, your suggestion that anyone else's argument is invalid is baseless. The truth is that there is a measure of fluidity built into these particular rules. Your 'proof' just repeats what the rules say 'many' does not mean all so at least some will not - teamwork feats are a reasonable example of such.

Your position is one of an extremely liberal reading. Mine less so. Where so much is up to the GM fair warning that your initial advice may not be met with such a warm reception is only fair.

I'm not going to quote the rules again, it won't change how you interpret them - what is impossible or makes no sense has to be up to the individual GM.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Your 'proof' just repeats what the rules say

Yes. I am giving my best counsel in good faith based on what the rules say. Part of that includes reporting on what the rules say.

dragonhunterq wrote:
Scott, your suggestion that anyone else's argument is invalid is baseless.

No. My arguments are based on what the rules say. This is a game. It is made out of rules. A suggestion about a game that is based on the rules of the gam is the opposite of baseless. What is baseless is your dismissing the Paizo FAQ's defining "ally" as including oneself. Evidence was brought. It was shown to be invalid.

dragonhunterq wrote:
The truth is that there is a measure of fluidity built into these particular rules. 'many' does not mean all so at least some will not - teamwork feats are a reasonable example of such.

Yes. Exactly. Teamwork Feats description is not nearly as restrictive as you and some others suggested.

dragonhunterq wrote:
Your position is one of an extremely liberal reading. Mine less so.

Whatever. Mine is based on the rules. Yours less so.

dragonhunterq wrote:
I'm not going to quote the rules again, it won't change how you interpret them

Since the examination of the rules so far are clearly demonstrating that you are wrong, it is hardly surprising that you have abandoned rules-based arguments.

Meanwhile, having given my best counsel in good faith according to what the rules say, having demonsrated that my counsel stands up to scrutiny, the OP has already decided not to follow that particular piece of my advice. Continuing this debate here is inappropriate. I have already begun further debate with Wonderstell in private, but I see no reason why anything said so far cannot be said in public. If you want to join in, you should start a new thread just for this purpose. Link to it here. I will keep an eye out for it.


dragonhunterq wrote:
- what is impossible or makes no sense has to be up to the individual GM.

If you are gaming with an individual GM, of course you should vet your build with him. I think that goes without saying. My advice is all about what the rules literally say. It is fair to view it through that lens.

In Pathfinder Society, players are supposed to have the right to play the game their own way according to what the rules say.

dragonhunterq wrote:
Where so much is up to the GM fair warning that your initial advice may not be met with such a warm reception is only fair.

So this is not a rules-based argument, but it is nevertheless a fair one. Even though the rules say so, the idea that that's-not-the-way-the-game-is-played is a valid concern. The concerns you raise are concerns that I have raised myself.

I wrote:
Technically
I wrote:
per RAW,
I wrote:
But you are planning on taking Paired Opportunist anyway, so you are good even if your GM is requiring it.
I wrote:
This is a commonly held misconception.


FAQ wrote:

except where it makes no sense or is impossible.[/url]is as much a part of the rules as anything else quoted. You cannot ignore it, however much you try.

It makes absolutely no sense for teamwork feats not to need another person - you can disagree with that, but you cannot refute the rule it is based on.


dragonhunterq wrote:
FAQ wrote:
except where it makes no sense or is impossible.

is as much a part of the rules as anything else quoted. You cannot ignore it, however much you try.

It makes absolutely no sense for teamwork feats not to need another person - you can disagree with that, but you cannot refute the rule it is based on.

You have nothing in the rules that backs your claim. You have nothing in the rules that says you absolutely need another person to use a Teamwork Feat.

Find something, or admit that I'm right.

But again, the OP has made it clear that this doesn't belong on this thread

Grand Lodge

In most cases. What does most mean here?

Most means the default assumption is you need another person who also has the feats.

You need to prove, in the affirmative, not with the ally faq which only entitles you to ask your gm if it makes sense. This is not affirmative proof. And clearly lot of gms will not rule this way.

For example solo tactics inarguably is an exception. Your rational differs from solo tactics in that it only gets you to the point where you can ask your gm it does not prove it works.

You are also trying to use a single phases to frame all of the rules. The only text that should apply to all the rules is the title, teamwork feats.

I have previously defined teamwork it requires more than one person. Can we agree on the dictionary definition of words?

This means their are 2 criteria that are similar but different. 1) most of the time you need an ally and they need to be positioned correctly. 2) teamwork by the definition of the word this requires more that one person (unless you can make the case the the tile and name of the feats are meaningless).

Does counting as your own ally count as being 2 people. No, if an ability says you can effect 3 allies, 3 creatures, or you and 3 allies if you use it on yourself does that count as 2 people (you and your ally)? Certainly not, so being your own ally is not being two people.

Thing to address.

What does teamwork mean?
Does being you own ally count as being two or more people?

Can you provide affirmative evidence that any one specific feat is an exception considering the rule you keep quoting indicates the default is requiring an ally and positioning.


Grandlounge, we shouldn't continue this debate on this thread. The OP has asked us not to. Someone should start a new thread.

Grandlounge wrote:
In most cases. What does most mean here?

It means not all. The rules allow for exception. Clearly, Broken Wing Gambit works much better when everyone in the party has the Feat. When that happens, when anyone gets attacked, everyone gets an AoO. But as the idea that you can't use it at all without allies. Nobody has been able to find rules that say that.

Grandlounge wrote:
You need to prove, in the affirmative, not with the ally faq

No I don't. You need to prove that the rules say that you can't use Teamwork Feats without allies that have the Feat.

Grandlounge wrote:
which only entitles you to ask your gm

You can say that about any rule. If you are going to resort to Rule 0 for every Rules Forum Debate, then you have ended every debate. The premise upon which I am debating is that the rules of the game matter.

Grandlounge wrote:
You are also trying to use a single phases to frame all of the rules.

False. I am invoking the FAQ. You are trying to argue that Teamwork Feats are an exception to the FAQ. But you have found 0 phrases that actually say that you have to have allies with the Teamwork Feat to use a Teamwork Feat yourself. "My" single phrase "In most cases" does frame does frame one sentence. But within the Ultimate Combat's description of Teamwork Feats, I have one phrase. You have zero. I am winning 1-0. It is upon you to find more evidence.

Grandlounge wrote:
The only text that should apply to all the rules is the title, teamwork feats.

Nonsense. What is a Teamwork Feat? What is it about Teamwork Feats that say you don't count as your own ally? What is in the description of Teamwork Feats that allow you to dismiss the Paizo FAQs? You haven't shown me anything that does that. The closes you came to it is a quote from Mark Seifter misquoting the rules.

Grandlounge wrote:
I have previously defined teamwork it requires more than one person.

YOU have defined Teamwork Feats? Are you an employee of Paizo Publishing making an official rules post? You do not get to offer your person as evidence.


Prove that it makes sense or is actually possible.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Prove that it makes sense or is actually possible.
Grandlounge wrote:

What does teamwork mean?

Does being you own ally count as being two or more people?
Can you provide affirmative evidence that any one specific feat is an exception considering the rule you keep quoting indicates the default is requiring an ally and positioning.

Okay, this bit is interesting. If you can prove that invoking the Paizo FAQ upon Broken Wing Gambit would require you not only being your own ally, but also being 2 separate people, I would concede that that would also make it impossible, nonsensical, and illegal.

But I ask you again please start a new thread, and link to it here. I will look for it. We are hijacking Cavall's thread.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / How many attacks and when does it stop? (AoO) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.