I recently took this feat and I was wondering that if it allows you to make attacks of opportunity through soft cover because it talks about allowing them in situations that would normally stop it and soft cover would be one of those situations.
The important part of the feat is this: "(even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity)"
As long as you have line of sight to the creature (and thus you can target them/are threatening them), you'd get your attack, though still have any penalties to hit that the situation would normally provide. The feat, being a teamwork feat, implies a certain level of coordination between you and your ally. Being able to jab through their square when you normally would/couldn't risk it seems in line with the intent.
Yes, Paired Opportunists does [sometimes] allow one to make AoOs at targets protected by Soft Cover, which would ordinarily be forbidden. The +4 Paired Opportunist and -4 Soft Cover penalties happen to cancel out.
Paired Opportunist sometimes also lets a character lacking Combat Reflexes perform an AoO while still flat-footed if an appropriately-positioned ally gets an AoO.
I've always taken that line to read "make one for broken wing gambit" even though if attacked you couldn't.
I've never read into it as allowed to attack flatfooted.
Cavall wrote: I've always taken that line to read "make one for broken wing gambit" even though if attacked you couldn't.
I've never read into it as allowed to attack flatfooted.
Flat footed is a situation that normally prevents you from taking attacks of opportunities.
Paired opportunist (when it triggers) allows you to make an attack of opportunity even if the situation normally prevents you from making AoO, as long as you still threaten the target. By my reading it absolutely works.
Situations that prevent you from making AoO that paired opportunist gets around:
Flat footed
Soft Cover
Out of AoO's
Total Concealment
Situations that Paired Opportunists doesn't get around:
Not holding a weapon
Total Cover
Opponent out of your Reach
Paralyzed/Nauseated/Stunned
Kyron "Death Knell" Shess wrote: Situations that prevent you from making AoO that paired opportunist gets around:
Flat footed
Soft Cover
Out of AoO's
Total Concealment
Nope, no, absolutely not.
Paired Opportunist wrote: You know how to make an enemy pay for lax defenses.
Benefit: 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.
If an enemy provokes an AoO from your ally, they also provoke from you. That's all. If the enemy would already provoke from you, this feat does not give you any benefit except the +4 to attack.
The enemy keeps provoking AoOs, yes. But that doesn't matter if you don't have any AoOs left to make.
I'm actually on the fence about Flat-Footed, I think the RAW is it prevents you.
Wonderstell wrote:
The enemy keeps provoking AoOs, yes. But that doesn't matter if you don't have any AoOs left to make.
I'm actually on the fence about Flat-Footed, I think the RAW is it prevents you.
That follows. They keep provoking. You just don't have the action to take.
Kyron "Death Knell" Shess wrote: Wonderstell wrote:
The enemy keeps provoking AoOs, yes. But that doesn't matter if you don't have any AoOs left to make.
I'm actually on the fence about Flat-Footed, I think the RAW is it prevents you.
That follows. They keep provoking. You just don't have the action to take. Yup, exactly.
Unlimited AoOs would rather quickly lead to infinite damage shenanigans, so that kind of thing is better left to mythic games.
Also, I'm retracting my statement about Flat-Footed. I mean, if that isn't "a situation where you're normally denied the attack of opportunity", what is?
Don't think it will come up often though, as you're sure to have Combat Reflexes if you take this feat.
Cavall wrote: I've always taken that line to read "make one for broken wing gambit" even though if attacked you couldn't.
I've never read into it as allowed to attack flatfooted.
You get an Attack of Opportunity off of Broken Wing Gambit, even if you are the one attacked.
Broken Wing Gambit wrote: If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat. You count as your own ally.
Not a very good link, sorry. I had to scroll down a bit from where the link led me. This is the pertinent ruling.
FAQ, Core Rulebook, GM Rules 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."
This is incorrect and I've no wish to have this inane conversation with you again.
Teamwork feats require more than one person. You do not count as your own ally for this feat. You would require paired opportunists feat to get an attack.
Please stop muddying threads with that link, as the link itself disproves your thought process. It's both unhelpful and confusing to new players
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Cavall wrote: I've always taken that line to read "make one for broken wing gambit" even though if attacked you couldn't.
I've never read into it as allowed to attack flatfooted.
You get an Attack of Opportunity off of Broken Wing Gambit, even if you are the one attacked.
Broken Wing Gambit wrote: If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat. You count as your own ally.
Not a very good link, sorry. I had to scroll down a bit from where the link led me. This is the pertinent ruling.
FAQ, Core Rulebook, GM Rules 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."
The line "or if doing so would make no sense" is applicable
Name Violation wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Cavall wrote: I've always taken that line to read "make one for broken wing gambit" even though if attacked you couldn't.
I've never read into it as allowed to attack flatfooted.
You get an Attack of Opportunity off of Broken Wing Gambit, even if you are the one attacked.
Broken Wing Gambit wrote: If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat. You count as your own ally.
Not a very good link, sorry. I had to scroll down a bit from where the link led me. This is the pertinent ruling.
FAQ, Core Rulebook, GM Rules 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."
The line "or if doing so would make no sense" is applicable I don't see how "if doing so would make no sense" would be applicable at all!
Broken Wing Gambit wrote: If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat. Broken Wing Gambit, if you replaced "your allies" with "you and your allies" wrote: If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from [you and] your allies who have this feat. It still makes sense. It's clearly not impossible. Perhaps you know of some other rule that sheds light on this.
It isn't especially appropriate to belabor this point. I have already comprehensively proven what I am saying on another thread. But Cavall made a factually false statement, and I feel compelled, like I do, to give my best counsel in good faith according to what the rules say.
Broken Wing Gambit Clarification.
If you or Cavall or anyone else have more evidence, evidence that is actually rules-based, we should continue it there.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It's called teamwork feats. Because it takes more than just one person to do it.
It isn't. Its singular. It's been years and you still hold on to this idea while ignoring the counterpoints. You may be on your own side but you arent you're own team by yourself.
Honestly, how is it even possible you can still hold this idea while ignoring the obvious.
Cavall wrote: It's called teamwork feats. Because it takes more than just one person to do it. That's not what we're talking about in the context of this thread. The OP is talking about having taken Paired Opportunist. She didn't specify what the situation in her part is, but presumably either everyone in her party has PO or her character has the Tactician Class ability or something that allows her to gift them to the party.
A propos of this thread, my assertion pertains to a Teamwork Feat team that has Broken Wing Gambit, not a solitary actor. I assert that the person in the team that gets attacked gets an Attack of Opportunity as well, because the FAQ clearly states that you count as your own ally.
I am not at all talking about using Broken Wing Gambit as a Team of 1 here. I have gone into detail about that in another place. I linked to it. I did not ignore your arguments. I cross examined them, disproved some of them, and heavily outweighed the rest with evidence of my own. You should necro the thread I linked to if you think you have a new rules-based argument to make. Emphasis on rules-based. I really don't appreciate your personal remarks. I demand to be treated like someone who is giving his best counsel in good faith according to what the rules say, because that is what I do.
Meanwhile, the OP isn't even taking Broken Wing Gambit as far as we know. I don't think it was particularly appropriate for you to bring it up at all, let alone make an assertion about it that has been proven moot at best. It muddies the waters, is unhelpful, and confuses new players.
The OP was asking about the Teamwork Feat Paired Opportunists and it's interaction with soft cover. To which the answer seems to be yes, so long as all of the triggering conditions are present. Those conditions being.
1.Ally also has this feat
2.You are adjacent to said ally
3.You threaten the enemy
4.Your ally threatens the enemy
5.The enemy has provoked an AoO from your ally
6.Said ally is not currently paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise unable to act.
Even if you do count as your own ally you would not be able to meet condition #2 for the purposes of this feat. Also, if you count as your own ally then it means #6 also applies to you.
If you're wondering about #6, this comes from the description for teamwork feats.
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.
Also, even if this feat gives you an AoO you're still limited to only one per round unless you have combat reflexes, even then you're limited by how many that feat gives you. This comes from the combat section where it talks about AoO. Basically an enemy could provoke an AoO from you 10 times, but unless you have combat reflexes and a high dex you won't get 10 attacks. Without combat reflexes you won't get more then one attack.
Paired Opportunists also has a caveat that states that this feat can't result in multiple attacks for the same action. So even if your enemy does something that provokes from both you and your ally you still only get one AoO for that particular action.
When it comes to being flat-footed I'm not sure that this feat actually changes anything. If you are flat-footed and someone runs past you, they technically still provoke an AoO from you. However, if you don't have Combat Reflexes you aren't able to do anything about it.
As for broken wing gambit, the OP wasn't asking about it, they were asking about paired opportunists. If both you and your allies have broken wing gambit and paired opportunists and you use BWG and the enemy attacks you, then the enemy will provoke an AoO from your ally whom has both feats. At this point if all of above requirements are met then you will also get an AoO when this happens, regardless if you believe you would normally get an AoO or not. Either way you only get 1 AoO from the enemy provoking in this manner.
If you want to discuss if you would normally get an AoO from BWG alone you can, but it's irrelevant to this thread which is about paired opportunists. It's also irrelevant to this thread if you count as your own ally or not because of the aforementioned clause #2.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Removed posts and their replies.
It is not acceptable to attack individuals. If you are concerned about inaccurate rules information, please do your best to provide the most accurate information to your knowledge and allow readers looking for the answers to make their own judgements with the provided in formation.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
OK.
Let's try it this way.
The FAQ quote does not have broken wing gambit in context.
The combat stamina system clearly has broken wing combat in context for the broken wing gambit section.
In that section, the context of it is clear that broken wing gambit would NOT NORMALLY ALLOW for someone to attack on their own gambit.
As specific trumps general, and because it is once again a teamwork feat, and because the flavour of the text says YOU are a distracting target, and lastly because the FAQ quoted is clear that if it doesnt make sense to be treated AS your own ally on occasions, and because broken wing gambit combat stamina states IS one of these occasions unless using an optional system, I put forth that broken wing gambit is not unusable to allow oneself to get an AoO without paired opportunists, and lies outside the FAQ shown.
Cavall wrote: OK.
Let's try it this way.
The FAQ quote does not have broken wing gambit in context.
I don't see why not. The FAQ I quoted is attached to Core Rulebook and the GM Rules. If it were in the Spells and Magic Section or something, it might be out of context. But in the GM rules, it is very broadly applicable. And the FAQ itself is very broadly worded.
"Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies." " It is always proper to at least evaluate whether you count as your own ally in any case.
"You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible."
Is it otherwise stated?
Does it make no sense?
Is it impossible?
Those are questions we need to consider for Broken Wing Gambit.
Cavall wrote: The combat stamina system clearly has broken wing combat in context for the broken wing gambit section.
In that section, the context of it is clear that broken wing gambit would NOT NORMALLY ALLOW for someone to attack on their own gambit.
But the whole stamina point rule system is an optional rule system. Most of Pathfinder Unchained isn't even allowed for Organized Play, including the bit about BWG. It might imply a certain understanding of the rules that differs from mine, but there is no reason I know of to suppose that this understanding of the rules is not as optional as the optional rules themselves. And it might even be the case that this implicit understanding of the rules is the very reason why it is not allowed for Organized Play. It is unfair for me to offer a conjecture on this: I am no respecter of Rules as Intended, but you are. Also, remember that "your allies" means "you and your allies" unless "otherwise stated." Your reading of the Broken Wing Gambit Combat Trick is implied, not stated.
Cavall wrote: specific trumps general, Yes, but official trumps optional.
FAQs trump regular rules, so they certainly trump optional rules.
Stated trumps implied.
I see the possible implications of an optional rule as being heavily outweighed by the explicit statement of an official ruling.
Cavall wrote: it is once again a teamwork feat, Nothing that I have stated in the context of this thread goes against the idea that BWG is a Teamwork Feat.
Cavall wrote: the flavour of the text says YOU are a distracting target, Yes, the attacked would have distracted the opponent the previous round by feigning weakness, displaying a figurative Broken Wing.
Cavall wrote: the FAQ quoted is clear that if it doesnt make sense to be treated AS your own ally Okay, so now you need to make the case that it would make no sense or be impossible for "your ally" to mean "you and your allies."
Cavall wrote: broken wing gambit combat stamina states IS one of these occasions unless using an optional system, Ah, but BWGCS does not state it is one of these occasions unless you are using an optional system: it only potentially implies it is within the context of an optional system.
Cavall wrote: I put forth that broken wing gambit is not unusable to allow oneself to get an AoO without paired opportunists, and lies outside the FAQ shown. The ability for the attacked to get an Attack of Opportunity off of Broken Wing Gambit is so powerful, I would consider it worth the tax to take Paired Opportunist, too, if I thought I had to. In fact I do have a character build that calls for taking both, but PO in that character is intended for the character to get AoOs off of Greater Bull Rush. And if the OP takes BWG, remember that she has PO already, which sort of makes this whole discussion academic.
I hope I have demonstrated why I am so certain that BWG is useable without Paired Opportunist even considering your counter argument.
Maybe I don’t understand the discussion here. It seems like Scott Wilhelm is saying that you don’t need a team to activate teamwork feats because you are your own ally and only an ally is needed to activate teamwork feats. If I’m not misunderstanding you and that is your contention, Scott, what is the point of the Solo Tactics class ability?
born_of_fire wrote: Maybe I don’t understand the discussion here. It seems like Scott Wilhelm is saying that you don’t need a team to activate teamwork feats because you are your own ally and only an ally is needed to activate teamwork feats. If I’m not misunderstanding you and that is your contention, Scott, what is the point of the Solo Tactics class ability? or the Tactician Class Ability! You are reading into what I am saying more than I actually said (I'm not offended or anything.). For starters, scan up a few posts of mine and note that
I wrote: Nothing that I have stated in the context of this thread goes against the idea that BWG is a Teamwork Feat. You are clearly not alone in thinking the opposite, though. Scroll up a bit further, and you will see that
Cavall wrote: It's called teamwork feats. Because it takes more than just one person to do it. To which
I wrote: That's not what we're talking about in the context of this thread. The OP is talking about having taken Paired Opportunist. She didn't specify what the situation in her part is, but presumably either everyone in her party has PO or her character has the Tactician Class ability or something that allows her to gift them to the party.
A propos of this thread, my assertion pertains to a Teamwork Feat team that has Broken Wing Gambit, not a solitary actor. I assert that the person in the team that gets attacked gets an Attack of Opportunity as well, because the FAQ clearly states that you count as your own ally.
Cavall, Wonderstell, I, and others have been arguing about Broken Wing Gambit for years. And it is fair to say I have views on BWG beyond the narrow context of this thread. I linked to our most recent debate before this one. I'd prefer to limit debate about BWG on this thread as much as possible, since it is only tangentially linked to the OP's OP.
born_of_fire wrote: It seems like Scott Wilhelm is saying that you don’t need a team to activate teamwork feats because you are your own ally and only an ally is needed to activate teamwork feats. Also, I'm not talking about all Teamwork Feats. I'm only talking about Broken Wing Gambit. Expanding the debate to include all Teamwork Feats should really be done on another thread, not even the one I linked to.
Quote: Stated trumps implied. It is stated.
Quote: When an opponent with the +2 bonus on attack rolls granted by this feat attacks you, you can spend 5 stamina points to have that attack provoke an attack of opportunity from you also. It doesn't give you an aoo normally, optional rule or not.
Exactly. There is nothing in the stamina system that implies the norm is that you would have an attack.
The OPTION is to ALLOW one to get an attack they normally would not.
What does the combat stamina system do if not this.
The only "option" it gives is to allow an attack. That's it. What else is optional? What does it do?
I would like an answer to this. Because I can not fathom what it does otherwise.
I would like to point out and stress it ends with "you also". Specifically stating that it would not be the norm, ever, without this optional system
willuwontu wrote: Quote: Stated trumps implied. It is stated.
Quote: When an opponent with the +2 bonus on attack rolls granted by this feat attacks you, you can spend 5 stamina points to have that attack provoke an attack of opportunity from you also. It doesn't give you an aoo normally, optional rule or not. You're quoting an optional rule and saying the optional rule trumps the official rules. More than the official rules, you are saying that an optional rule trumps official rulings in the FAQ that trump even the official rules!
Surely, if you are in a campaign that plays with the optional, Stamina rules, your interpretation is correct, but I don't see how the optional rules apply at all when you aren't playing with them.
Cavall wrote: Exactly. There is nothing in the stamina system that implies the norm is that you would have an attack.
The OPTION is to ALLOW one to get an attack they normally would not.
What does the combat stamina system do if not this?
The Combat Stamina Optional Rules are, I think, ambiguous about how things normally would be. It might be that the Broken Wing Gambit Combat Trick allows you to play a trick that you normally couldn't, but it also might mean that BWGCT imposes a price on what is there called a trick that otherwise would be just part of the Feat you normally could do for free.
Combat Stamina overall is intended to make Fighters more powerful, but that doesn't mean that every single aspect of CS rules makes Fighters more powerful. Combat Stamina is an entire alternate rules system, not just a bunch of alternate advantages. Consider the Unchained Monk in the same rulebook. Overall, most people seem to think the Unchained Monk is better than the earlier Monk, but there are ways in which the Core Rulebook Monk is better. The Core Monk has 3 Good Saves; the Unchained Monk has only 2. The Core Monk gets Still Mind at Level 3; the Unchained Monk gets Still Mind at Level 4. CS could well have game-balancing disadvantages intentionally or unintentionally mixed in.
Another thing to consider is that even if CS is taking from Fighters in absolute terms, it still would be advantaging Fighters in relative terms. The optional rules take one of BWG's AoOs away from everyone, but Fighters get it back at the cost of Stamina Points.
So, overall, I have 2 problems here:
1) I don't see where Combat Stamina stated that normally that you don't get to do it at all and not that there is now a price where there used to be none, and I see the implications of the Normal as ambiguous.
2) Even were they, that would constitute an interpretation of the rules couched inside a set of optional rules, not an official ruling that overturns the FAQ.
I could be mistaken, but I think that when one plays without Psionics, one plays as if Psionics never existed. The same would be the case with Firearms and with the Butcher Class (limb-lopping!). I think if you were playing in a campaign without Firearms, it would be inappropriate to apply any part of the Firearms Rules to your non-Firearm campaign.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: willuwontu wrote: Quote: Stated trumps implied. It is stated.
Quote: When an opponent with the +2 bonus on attack rolls granted by this feat attacks you, you can spend 5 stamina points to have that attack provoke an attack of opportunity from you also. It doesn't give you an aoo normally, optional rule or not. You're quoting an optional rule and saying the optional rule trumps the official rules. More than the official rules, you are saying that an optional rule trumps official rulings in the FAQ that trump even the official rules!
Surely, if you are in a campaign that plays with the optional, Stamina rules, your interpretation is correct, but I don't see how the optional rules apply at all when you aren't playing with them. So you're saying that the rules which don't change the base wording of the feat, cause it to function differently.
What I am saying, scott, is that the optional systems ONLY OPTION is to do something that you say the rule does anyways.
In which case I ask again.
What does it do?
Because it comes down to 2 things.
It either does the thing you say the feat already does, but now for some reason unexplained it not only costs you stamina but SOMEHOW still goes out of it's way to state "also you can now attack for this cost" which doesn't imply anything, or outright states something...
Or
It could never do the thing you've stated and this optional system now way to accomplish that.
Since the first is not only nonsensical if it does nothing, but also somehow weirdly specific in that it exists to clarify that only allies would get an attack that somehow doesn't include you (and again, to be clear, if we are to believe this line of thinking, we have to believe it exists solely to add a cost on to the one part that only you seem to read differently), I'm inclined to think it may just be the second. That by it's very existence it is proof that the core system has always been this way, that the core rules have always stated you are your own ally unless stated otherwise and that this feat is in fact, and indeed always has, stated otherwise.
This is, of course, not even factoring in the part where it is a teamwork feat that you believe functions without a team.
For these reasons, and for the fact I see nothing supporting your statements as far as how this feat is worded, I am going to state your opinion and stance on this is now proven incorrect.
willuwontu wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: willuwontu wrote: Quote: Stated trumps implied. It is stated.
Quote: When an opponent with the +2 bonus on attack rolls granted by this feat attacks you, you can spend 5 stamina points to have that attack provoke an attack of opportunity from you also. It doesn't give you an aoo normally, optional rule or not. You're quoting an optional rule and saying the optional rule trumps the official rules. More than the official rules, you are saying that an optional rule trumps official rulings in the FAQ that trump even the official rules!
Surely, if you are in a campaign that plays with the optional, Stamina rules, your interpretation is correct, but I don't see how the optional rules apply at all when you aren't playing with them. So you're saying that the rules which don't change the base wording of the feat, cause it to function differently. I don't understand what you are saying here.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: willuwontu wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: willuwontu wrote: Quote: Stated trumps implied. It is stated.
Quote: When an opponent with the +2 bonus on attack rolls granted by this feat attacks you, you can spend 5 stamina points to have that attack provoke an attack of opportunity from you also. It doesn't give you an aoo normally, optional rule or not. You're quoting an optional rule and saying the optional rule trumps the official rules. More than the official rules, you are saying that an optional rule trumps official rulings in the FAQ that trump even the official rules!
Surely, if you are in a campaign that plays with the optional, Stamina rules, your interpretation is correct, but I don't see how the optional rules apply at all when you aren't playing with them. So you're saying that the rules which don't change the base wording of the feat, cause it to function differently. I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that rules that don't change the wording of the feat, change the way it works?
Cavall wrote: your opinion and stance on this is now proven incorrect. For you to prove that you need to both prove that what you claim to be unambiguously stated implications on the rules is not, in fact ambiguously implied and also show why optional rules apply in any way trump or dictate what the actual rules say when you are not exercising those options.
I don't see how you have proven either.
Cavall wrote: Since the first is not only nonsensical It isn't nonsensical. It would mean that it's an optional rules system where you have to pay these new Stamina Points where you used to be able to do it for free. What is nonsensical about that?
I'm not saying that that is definitely the correct interpretation of the BWGCT, but I am saying that it is a possible interpretation, and so the actual, implied interpretation is not clear.
Further, this is all in context of an optional rules system. If you are not playing with the optional rules, I don't see why you have to play with any interpretation of intent the optional rules may or may not imply.
So, not stated, not unambiguously implied, and anyway, optional.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You're your own ally unless it wouldn't make sense. Paizo can't help you if you don't have any sense, unfortunately.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: I am no respecter of Rules as Intended, but you are. Remarkable. I couldn't have said it better myself.
As per your own words, you have no respect for how the game is supposed to be played.
=====
The Rules-as-Intended of the Broken Wing Gambit feat has been proven multiple times. The problem is that you don't care for it.
Your line of reasoning depend on the idea that we can't prove that the "Own Ally" FAQ doesn't apply, since that requires GM interpretation. Then you've made the leap of logic to assume that since nobody can prove it doesn't apply, then it must apply.
You've failed to understand that you are stuck in the exact same position, where you have to prove to us that the "Own Ally" FAQ applies.
But wait, you can't prove that it would make sense to be treated as your own ally in this situation, as that requires GM interpretation. The same reasoning you've used until now to refute our arguments.
But this does not, in any way, mean that our two sides should be judged as equal in this discussion. According to your own reasoning, you have absolutely nothing to back up your position, while we have clear RAI on our side.
The only reason you refuse to accept this is because:
Scott Wilhelm wrote: I am no respecter of Rules as Intended
Wonderstell,
You are quite welcome to quote me to demonstrate that just about every point I make on these forums is about the rules-as-written and almost never the rules as intended.
My contentions about Broken Wing Gambit have nothing to do with speculations about what the game designers meant when they wrote the rules. I think it is deeply problematic to do so. I am reporting on what the rules actually say. I have brought abundant and comprehensive evidence to demonstrate that my point is true.
If you want to make the point that that is not what they meant when they said it, well, maybe. Make your point, then. On this thread, I don't believe anyone actually has made the point that BWG was not intended to work the way I said it should. You and Cavall have both tried to use the Stamina rules for this I think, but I don't think that argument makes the cut for reasons I delineated above, and you are welcome to cross-examine.
That being said, I still want to respect the OP, and I am concerned that our argument would take us far afield from what she was asking about: we are already far afield. You and I had been arguing about this on the thread I linked to. I'm willing to continue debate for as long as you are able to remain civil, or until one of us convinces the other.
I certainly will quote you back to yourself from time-to-time, it is only fair that you quote me back to myself. It is also fair to point out to our readers when my arguments are make without regard to what the game designers intended and also without regard to practical conventions as to how the game is played by other people, both of which happen often. I believe that everyone should have the right to play the game their own way according to the rules, even if that way is in the minority. I am giving my best counsel in good faith according to what the rules really say, and you can quote me on that!
Ok so here is a direct quote of combat stamina.
"This system allows a character to draw upon an internal reservoir of will and gumption to overturn the assumed limitations of combat, at least for short bursts. "
The system is made to overturn the assumed limitations.
Therefore unless YOU can prove the statement that anything in the combat stamina system adds a cost on to something you can do anyways, your statement about broken wing gambit is now not only unsupported but proven false by the very premise of combat stamina, and our statement that it was ALWAYS assumed to be limited is proven true.
Since you made the statement that it is something that you could do that now costs, the burden of proof now lies upon you to use the combat stamina system to prove that statement.
Cavall wrote: Ok so here is a direct quote of combat stamina.
"This system allows a character to draw upon an internal reservoir of will and gumption to overturn the assumed limitations of combat, at least for short bursts. "
The system is made to overturn the assumed limitations.
Therefore unless YOU can prove the statement that anything in the combat stamina system adds a cost on to something you can do anyways, your statement about broken wing gambit is now not only unsupported but proven false by the very premise of combat stamina, and our statement that it was ALWAYS assumed to be limited is proven true.
Since you made the statement that it is something that you could do that now costs, the burden of proof now lies upon you to use the combat stamina system to prove that statement.
The burden of proof isn't on me. I'm saying that the Stamina is an entire optional rules system that might be creating some of the very limitations that it is intended to remedy. Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that any implications of the Normal within the optional rules may not be taken to be as optional as these optional rules themselves.
And I think it is generally misguided to suppose that Optional Rules have any bearing on the game whatsoever unless your GM just happens to be playing with them.
It is not misguided to have an additional system inform you how the original system was intended in the first place.
And yes. You made a statement about the system adding on the cost instead of showing the intention all along, therefore the burden of proof is on you to show that.
You must show that it creating limitations it is intending to remedy in order to make that statement. Otherwise it is proof that by "The system is made to overturn the assumed limitations" you are 100% now proven wrong.
You can not make the statement that all you care about is rules not intention and then tell us what the intentions are of a system. Nor can you deny when further systems are brought in to tell us how it was a limitation all along.
Or you could admit you were wrong. I mean at this point its proven so it's not like you've even slightly swayed a single person to what you are saying. Unless you could prove it. Which, again, the burden is upon you for making the statement in the first place.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: ----- Whoever sold you that Ring of Protection scammed you, because your deflections have never worked.
The only point you've ever made, is that we can't prove that the "Own Ally" FAQ doesn't apply. But you've failed to provide any RAW reasoning as for why the "Own Ally" FAQ should apply.
So please enlighten us with your "abundant and comprehensive evidence". Explain to us by only using your precious RAW why it would make sense for Broken Wing Gambit to be affected by the FAQ.
Core FAQ wrote: 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." '
Remember, you yourself have argued against the description of teamwork feats by saying that "in most cases" doesn't mean "all cases". So you can't depend on the "almost always" sentence because that isn't sufficient proof according to yourself.
Don't you think it's hilarious that you base your RAW reading of the rules on a FAQ that requires a RAI reading of the rules?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Cavall and Wonderstell move into the thread.
Scott Wilhelm also moves into the thread and casts FAQ, which grants him soft cover against Sarcasm attacks and +2 AC against RAI attacks.
Xenocrat readies a move action upon Wonderstell doing an AoO.
Cavall attacks Scott Wilhelm using Combat Stamina. Cavall also has Broken Wing Gambit, thus he spends a free action to give Scott Wilhelm +2 to hit and damage against himself for the next round. Cavall then moves away, provoking AoO from Scott Wilhelm.
Scott Wilhelm interprets this as a moment of weakness, and takes the AoO against Cavall, attacking him with It's just an optional system argument.
This triggers the effect of Broken Wing Gambit on Wonderstell, who also has the teamwork feat, giving him (but not Cavall) an AoO against Scott Wilhelm. This triggers Xenocrat's move action.
Xenocrat moves adjacent to Wonderstell before the AoO against Scott Wilhelm takes place. Both Wonderstell and Xenocrat have the Paired Opportunist feat. Wonderstell resolves his AoO, which elicits an AoO from Xenocrat against the same target.
Xenocrat uses Sarcasm against Scott Wilhelm: normally it would not be possible due to Scott Wilhelm being in soft cover against Sarcasm attacks, however Paired Opportunist circumvents the limitation.
After the avalanche of off-turn attacks, Scott Wilhelm moves away, hoping that neither Wonderstell nor Xenocrat have Combat Reflexes. However, it is now Cavall's, Wonderstell's and Xenocrat's turn, and it doesn't look good for Scott Wilhelm.
Accurate
It's ironic that I'd need 5 ranks in
bluff to state the truth.
Gray Warden wrote: However, it is now Cavall's, Wonderstell's and Xenocrat's turn, and it doesn't look good for Scott Wilhelm. What argument have you been following? I comprehensively demonstrated that you count as your own ally long ago, and the best Cavall and Wonderstell can bring to counter it are optional rules that don't actually say what they want they want them to say: they are deriving their own interpretations to justify walking all over the actual rules and ignoring the FAQ.
I have Great Cleave in addition to Broken Wing Gambit, and unlike them, I don't need to spend Stamina Points to get my Attacks of Opportunity!
You've demonstrated under some circumstances you do.
You havent for this feat. Nor have you defined anything comprehensively.
We've shown on multiple points that your view is not only wrong, its rooted in denial of the game rules itself.
If this was a battle, youd have a coup de grace while trying to cast magic missile at the darkness.
It's done and over. 100%. I'd loot the body but I havent seen a single thing of value yet.
Go on. Prove your statements made as I've asked. Burden of proof lies on you. Do it or concede.
Hey Scott, how about Target of Opportunity?
here's the text:
When an ally who also has this feat makes a ranged attack and hits an opponent within 30 feet of you, you can spend an immediate action to make a single ranged attack against that opponent. Your ranged weapon must be in hand, loaded, and ready to be fired or thrown for you to make the ranged attack.
Since, according to you:
- you are your own ally
- you do have this feat
Can you essentially fire an extra arrow every turn as an immediate action as long as you are in PBS range? WOW, I wonder why people don't constantly take this feat and limit themselves to a puny Manyshot.
But wait, there's more. Since
Combat wrote: Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you. and you count as your own ally, do you also count as your own adjacent ally for the purpose of Teamwork feats? Since, you know, you are 0ft away from yourself, and 0ft is within 5ft...
If this is the case, then I definitely don't need friends anymore!
|
