Please oh moderators, brave good moderators, kill this thread as it improbably is turning the marginally sociable into the completely unsociable. Both sides fall prey to bad arguments, and vitriol. I took a 2 year break from this, it may not have been long enough.
Good find Wonderstell. Just in case anything gets removed or moved around I'll just copy paste the linked info here so people, including Scott who may not have seen it, can be caught up.
Mark Seifter wrote: Grandlounge wrote: Hey Mark,
Question one
This has come up a few times in a few different ways, do you count as your own ally for teamwork feats? Or, is this an area that would "make no sense or be impossible."
For example can broken wing gambit be used solo?
I lean towards no as teamwork is "the the combined action of a group of people" but it keeps coming up.
Question two
How does the urban barbarian's rage (+4 STR) interact with amplified rage?
Thanks!
1)
"...these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat"
So you aren't an ally who also possesses the feat because you aren't the "also," you're the original person to whom the also is appended. It would have been easier and probably more natural if we were to have just not had a person count as their own ally, like in Starfinder, but that ship has sailed!
2) Seems like you have a morale bonus to Strength to increase by 4 but not a morale bonus to Con to increase, so you do what you can.
Yes. One should always be upset when the correct answer is found.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Cavall wrote: Go on. Prove your statements made as I've asked. Again? Well, okay.
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.
So, there it is. That’s what the rules say. I have proven my point.
It is fair to challenge this, but it has been severely challenged, and it has withstood all tests.
Name Violation raised this challenge most recently, namely that you only
FAQ wrote: count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. But nothing in the text of Broken Wing Gambit makes this either nonsensical nor impossible. How does it look if you look at the text and substitute “your allies” with “you and your allies.”
Broken Wing Gambit, substituting “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. No problem there, test passed: you “feign weakness,” in game terms granting an attack and damage bonus to your opponent, but if they take it, they expose themselves even worse, in game terms by provoking attacks of opportunity from you and your allies. Far from nonsensical, it is quite intuitively sensible.
No one has been able to find an official rules source where this is otherwise stated:
Cavall asserted that the fact that the simple fact that BWG is a Teamwork Feat makes it nonsensical and impossible.
Cavall wrote: It's called teamwork feats. Because it takes more than just one person to do it. But the situation we are talking about here is when the attacked has 1 or more allies that have this feat. There has been debate about the other situation, but that is not what we are talking about here.
Wonderstell and Cavall assert that the Combat Stamina Rules imply that BWG does not give the attacked an AoO, but the FAQ ruling makes it plain that “implied” is not adequate.
FAQ, Core Rulebook, GM’s Rules wrote: You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated “Implied” is not “stated.” Also, I demonstrated that another interpretation may also be implied: that the Combat Trick is not granting an ability that used to be unavailable, but rather that it is imposing a Stamina Point cost on something that you used to be able to do for free as part of the Feat.
Cavall wrote: There is nothing in the stamina system that implies the norm is that you would have an attack. It doesn’t have to! There is an official ruling that clearly states this!
FAQ wrote: You count as your own ally Moreover, the Stamina Rules are optional rules, not official rules. Even if Combat Stamina did state that normally the Attacked doesn’t get the Attack of Opportunity, there is no reason not to dismiss such a statement as optional, too. My proof is in the official rules. Your proof is in the optional rules.
Official trumps optional.
And ah yes, Mark Seifter’s quote.
I wrote: Mark Seifter is a designer, so his opinion is better evidence than my opinion is. The problem here is that at no point am I offering my opinion as evidence. My opinion is argument supported by evidence, in this case the actual rules of the game. Mark Seifter himself is not offering his opinion as evidence! I have often said that what the rules actually say is better evidence than the opinion of the designers, and Mark Seifter agrees with me. The game designers have to obey the rules of the game they themselves created! If they don’t, no one should! Mark Seifter agrees with me.
Mark Seifter wrote: this is just my off-the-cuff answer, so it isn't official--it's just how I'd run it in my games until a FAQ… Please don't do that--there is no official designer ruling on the subject. As I said two posts ago, that isn't official. It's my personal opinion as a GM. So, so if you respect Mark Seifter’s opinion like I do, You will respect his opinion now that opinion is poor evidence.
Putting my opinion as an equivalence against Mark Seifter’s is bad logic, and it is dishonest. Mark Seifter himself says that his opinion on the game does not count as an official ruling. When Mark Seifter joins a debate about the rules and is not changing the rules in some kind of official post, he has to quote the rules just like we do. Who says? Mark says!
Official trumps optional.
Stated trumps implied.
Evidence trumps opinion.
Don’t be like someone who dishonestly offers opinion as evidence.
Let’s examine the rule that was quoted.
Teamwork Feats wrote: In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield. The general rules regarding Teamwork Feats clearly cannot be used to say that the simple fact that something is a Teamwork Feat means that it must “make no sense or be impossible” for “your allies” to mean “you and your allies.” “In most cases” does not mean “in every case.” If they meant in every case, they could have just left that prepositional phrase off. One of the reasons why I reject arguments about the intent of the rules is that it is usually impossible to be certain of what the actual intent is. But, here we have a clear marker for intent. They actually they added more words to soften the statement. Clearly, the intent of describing Teamwork Feats in this way--”In most cases”--is to allow for exceptions. Well, I am reporting that I have found one, and no one has brought forth any actual rules that say I haven’t. If they didn’t mean to allow for exceptions, they did so by accident; they should fix it, but they still did it, and the real rules really say what I am saying they say.
Meanwhile, on this thread, we are not actually talking about a case where we have a team one 1, so this rule has no real bearing on this situation.
Where does this leave us?
An official ruling states you count as your own ally.
The text of the Broken Wing Gambit Feat clearly allows this as sensible and possible.
The assertion that Teamwork Feats can only be used with team mates that also have the feat is irrelevant even if true since in this situation, the attacked character does have team mates with this feat.
The official description of Teamwork Feats does not serve as justification of exempting Teamwork Feats from the FAQ.
The Combat Stamina rules possibly imply but do not state that you normally don’t get to make an AoO if you are the one attacked.
The Combat Stamina rules are optional, anyway.
So,
Stated trumps implied.
Official trumps optional.
Relevant trumps irrelevant.
Facts trump opinions.
At this point, we’re just repeating ourselves here.
Cavall wrote: It's done and over. 100%. Clearly!
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You spent a lot of typing to be this in denial. Mark's not giving you an opinion. He is showing you the teamwork feats are defined. Not by opinion but by the exact english we've been showing you that you're in denial of.
And it doesnt matter. You aren't going to agree to it. You CLEARLY at this point have to see you're wrong but can't admit it.
And so it's not a point of convincing you. It's a point where you just admit it. Since that's solely on you, I am done.
Hey Scott, buddy, such a lotta text and still you haven't replied to my questions. Here they are again:
Gray Warden wrote: 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!
So, how does Target of Opportunity work? Do you count as your own adjacent ally?
Scott,
When Mark says
Mark wrote:
So you aren't an ally who also possesses the feat because you aren't the "also," you're the original person to whom the also is appended
He isn't stating his opinion. He is explaining how the English language works.
Further, we should be seeing if the word replacement makes sense within this text.
Teamwork Feat wrote:
In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield.
Substituted language in bold
You or your ally case:
In most cases, these feats require an you or an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield.
Or more simply for the solo usage case:
In most cases, these feats require you to also possesses the feat and be positioned carefully on the battlefield.
So, you must posess the feat, and you ALSO must possess the feat. That is nonsensical.
Gray Warden wrote: Hey Scott, buddy, such a lotta text and still you haven't replied to my questions. Here they are again:
Gray Warden wrote: 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!
So, how does Target of Opportunity work? Do you count as your own adjacent ally?
I haven't been addressing Target of Opportunity, and I don't see why I should. You haven't really articulated a thesis that shows me what bearing Target of Opportunity has on Broken Wing Gambit.
bbangerter wrote: Scott,
When Mark says
Mark wrote: So you aren't an ally who also possesses the feat because you aren't the "also," you're the original person to whom the also is appended He isn't stating his opinion. He is explaining how the English language works.
Mark Seifter is not the King of England. He does not dictate how the English Language works. He can rewrite the rules of Pathfinder, but where he was quoted in this thread, he has not done so.
When Mark is not making Official Rules Posts, he himself has stated that his remarks are nothing more than his opinion, how he thinks of things, and how he rules things at his own game table.
It is inappropriate, therefore to use his opinions as evidence in contradiction to the rules. He wouldn't. I know he wouldn't, because he has said so in the past. Also, where he was quoted here, he doesn't puff out his chest, shout his credentials, and dictate the Truth. Mark was citing the official rules to make his point, just like I do.
I am citing official rules to make my points. According to Mark Seifter, actual rules beat opinion, even his own.
bbangerter wrote: Further, we should be seeing if the word replacement makes sense within this text.
Teamwork Feat wrote: In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield.
Actually, I don't see why we should. My point has nothing to do with substituting "your allies" with "you and your allies" in this sentence. The point I am making in this sentence has everything to do with "In most cases".
"In most cases" softens the statement so that is more of a guideline than an actual rule. It means that not necessarily all Teamwork Feats require you have allies with the Feat to positioned carefully on the Battlefield, and you need to consider each Feat on a case-by-case basis. In short, this sentence cannot be used as justification to rule that "your allies" meaning "you and your allies" is nonsensical and/or impossible just because BWG is a Teamwork Feat.
That being said, the word replacement with that sentence is interesting.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Wow. This argument.
Just wow.
|
12 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm very confused here, but I do want to come into the thread here to help clear up an important question you all might have: I can confirm that I am, in fact, not the King of England.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Mark Seifter wrote: I'm very confused here, but I do want to come into the thread here to help clear up an important question you all might have: I can confirm that I am, in fact, not the King of England. That's what I'd expect the King of England to say if he didn't want to be found and and assassinated by the usurper currently on the throne.
I have returned to my thread. This thread is about Paired Opportunist. Everything else is nothing I care about. Please stop talking about anything else since it does not matter for what is being said here. On top of all of that, my question was answered.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kamea wrote: I have returned to my thread. This thread is about Paired Opportunist. Everything else is nothing I care about. Please stop talking about anything else since it does not matter for what is being said here. On top of all of that, my question was answered. I can’t imagine why you think your desires are relevant to people who want to talk in this thread.
Mark Seifter wrote: I'm very confused here, but I do want to come into the thread here to help clear up an important question you all might have: I can confirm that I am, in fact, not the King of England. Thank you Mark for weighing in on this. People have actually been saying you have power over the English Language as if it were the King's English and you were the King.
But we all agree you do have the power to officially change the rules. I'd be very much obliged if you ended this argument with a wise ruling. I am resolved to accept any official ruling even if I don't believe it to be wise.
The problem here is that I have proven to be technically correct an interpretation of the rules that is strongly disliked by several contributors including, I suspect, yourself.
I summed up the argument at some length about 10 posts up.
The problem, I think, is that I have proven that you can use Broken Wing Gambit to get Attacks of Opportunity for yourself because there is an FAQ that says that you count as your own ally.
People have been arguing that something being a Teamwork Feat would make such a thing "make no sense or be impossible" (as per the FAQ)because Teamwork Feats say that you need allies that have the Feat.
The problem is, Teamwork Feats don't actually say that. They only say you need such allies "In most cases". That means you can't actually use that rule to blanketly exempt Teamwork Feats from the you-count-as-your-own-ally FAQ. As far as I know, there is no other official rules source that actually addresses this. Combat Stamina rules seem to, but those are optional rules.
An erratum that redacts the prepositional phrase "In most cases" would end the argument as far as I'm concerned.
Uphold my interpretation with an Official rules Post.
Strike down my interpretation with an Official rules Post.
Either way, I don't care what the rules are: I just want to know what the rules are and give my best counsel in good faith according to what the rules are.
Xenocrat wrote: Kamea wrote: I have returned to my thread. This thread is about Paired Opportunist. Everything else is nothing I care about. Please stop talking about anything else since it does not matter for what is being said here. On top of all of that, my question was answered. I can’t imagine why you think your desires are relevant to people who want to talk in this thread. I really did and do want to respect the OP. I made repeated requests to move the discussion to an older thread where we had already been having this argument. I linked to the thread, but Cavall and Wonderstell insisted on going on Kamea's lawn.
Kamea wrote: Please stop talking about anything else since it does not matter for what is being said here. Only the King of England may command Mark Seifter.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Xenocrat wrote: Mark Seifter wrote: I'm very confused here, but I do want to come into the thread here to help clear up an important question you all might have: I can confirm that I am, in fact, not the King of England. That's what I'd expect the King of England to say if he didn't want to be found and and assassinated by the usurper currently on the throne. We are not amused.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: I haven't been addressing Target of Opportunity, and I don't see why I should. You haven't really articulated a thesis that shows me what bearing Target of Opportunity has on Broken Wing Gambit. That's called argument to absurdity, ever heard of it? It is used to disprove an hypothesis by showing that accepting said hypothesis leads inevitably to an absurd.
Hypothesis: "You count as your own ally for the purposes of Teamwork feats."
Absurd: "Target of Opportunity gives you an extra ranged attack as an immediate action every round no matter what."
Can you address this please? Of course you won't, because you are wrong, and you know it.
Gray Warden wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: I haven't been addressing Target of Opportunity, and I don't see why I should. You haven't really articulated a thesis that shows me what bearing Target of Opportunity has on Broken Wing Gambit. That's called argument to absurdity, ever heard of it? It is used to disprove an hypothesis by showing that accepting said hypothesis leads inevitably to an absurd.
Hypothesis: "You count as your own ally for the purposes of Teamwork feats."
Absurd: "Target of Opportunity gives you an extra ranged attack as an immediate action every round no matter what."
Can you address this please? Of course you won't, because you are wrong, and you know it. Okay, so you are trying to say that if what I'm saying is true for Broken Wing Gambit, it is also true for Target of Opportunity. And if it is also true for Target of Opportunity, then that somehow ruins the game.
I don't really see how it ruins the game even if it were true: you take an extra Feat, it gives you an extra attack/round sometimes. Nice, but hardly broken.
And even if it did break the game, that does not mean that anything that I am saying is false. It means that I have discovered and am reporting on a problem with the rules--according to you, Cavall and Wonderstell--a big problem, and the Design Team should fix this problem.
In case you haven't noticed, I asked a game designer to do exactly this.
Mark Seifter, King of England wrote: Xenocrat wrote: Mark Seifter wrote: I'm very confused here, but I do want to come into the thread here to help clear up an important question you all might have: I can confirm that I am, in fact, not the King of England. That's what I'd expect the King of England to say if he didn't want to be found and and assassinated by the usurper currently on the throne. We are not amused. Yeah, isn't that treason?
I...
I don't think it's a problem with the rules.
But, as the ACTUAL King of England, if it helps you sleep at night, ok.
You are wrong, Scott. So says England.
/scepter drop.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Mark Seifter wrote: I'm very confused here, but I do want to come into the thread here to help clear up an important question you all might have: I can confirm that I am, in fact, not the King of England. Thank you Mark for weighing in on this. People have actually been saying you have power over the English Language as if it were the King's English and you were the King.
Fabricating what people are actually saying doesn't help...
No one has made any statements or claims to the above. Just because I don't have authority to make rules changes to the English language, or dictate how it works, does not prevent me from understanding the rules of the English language or making any attempts to explain those rules to someone else. The same applies to Mark. He is not the King (disappointing IMO), but that does not mean he does not understand language and its rules.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
They only say you need such allies "In most cases".
The problem is that you are stopping there. It does not say
Quote:
In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat.
The full language is
Quote:
In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield.
Emphasis mine. In some cases, the ally who also possesses this feat, does not need to be positioned carefully on the battlefield. NOT "In some cases these feats do not require an ally."
^_^
Uhmm, I enjoy the silliness, but my nit picky nature will out......
There is no King of England currently, so I will only let you get away calling yourself the Royal BoyToy of England, unless you can tell me what the watery tart whispered in your ear when she handed you that sword.
bbangerter wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Mark Seifter wrote: I'm very confused here, but I do want to come into the thread here to help clear up an important question you all might have: I can confirm that I am, in fact, not the King of England. Thank you Mark for weighing in on this. People have actually been saying you have power over the English Language as if it were the King's English and you were the King.
Fabricating what people are actually saying doesn't help... I didn't fabricate that
Cavall wrote: exact english we've been showing you that you're in denial of. bbangerter wrote: No one has made any statements or claims to the above. You did!
You wrote: He is explaining how the English language works. Pretty condescending, really. There is nothing wrong with my command of the English Language, and I am not fabricating what you said. Are you telling me you didn't mean it that way? Is that an apology?
bbangerter wrote: The problem Scott Wilhelm wrote: They only say you need such allies "In most cases". bbangerter wrote: The problem is that you are stopping there. It does not say Quote:
In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat.
This has been argued already. This does not create a problem with my argument.
bbangerter wrote: The full language is Quote: In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield. Emphasis mine. In some cases, the ally who also possesses this feat, does not need to be positioned carefully on the battlefield. NOT "In some cases these feats do not require an ally." It is not at all clear that it requires the ally to be in most cases positioned and not that it in most cases requires the ally to have the Feat. Because of that, you cannot use this sentence as evidence that just because a Feat is a Teamwork Feat, it "makes no sense or is impossible" for the you-count-as-your-own ally FAQ to apply to it.
Even if your analysis of the grammar of the sentence is correct, you have to prove that mine can't also be correct, and you haven't done that.
Do you want the grammatical analysis again?
Teamwork Feats wrote: In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield. What is the base sentence: subject, predicate, verb?
These Feats require an ally.
"who also possesses the feat" is a subordinate clause being used as an adjective to modify "ally." What needs to "also possess the feat?" the ally, that's who.
"To be carefully positioned" is an infinitive phrase. What has to be carefully positioned? The ally does. "To be carefully positioned" is an infinitive phrase being used as an adjective to modify "ally".
So both "who possesses the feat" and "to be carefully positioned" modify "ally." One does not grammatically modify the other.
"On the battlefield" is a prepositional phrase. This describes how the ally is to be positioned. "On the battlefield" is a prepositional phrase being used as an adverb to modify "to be positioned."
Let's look at the most important bit:
"In most cases" is a prepositional phrase. What is it modifying? I don't think Teamwork Feats are in-most-cases Feats. I think that Teamwork Feats in most cases require. "In most cases" is a prepositional phrase being used as an adverb to modify the verb "require." What only happens "in most cases"?
The requirement, that's what!
Daw wrote: ^_^
Uhmm, I enjoy the silliness, but my nit picky nature will out......
There is no King of England currently, so I will only let you get away calling yourself the Royal BoyToy of England, unless you can tell me what the watery tart whispered in your ear when she handed you that sword.
Ah but now you're in an area of significant linguistic interest with regard to truth values: The present King of France is bald.
Falls of the branch laughing, "Close enough, You'll do."
FWIW, Mark's commentary on "also" is linguistic fiction. Not that that makes the continued existence of this thread any less sad.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
