Outflank Feat reads:
Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.Paired Opportunist reads:
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.Solo tactics reads:
At 3rd level, all of the inquisitor’s allies are treated as if they possessed the same teamwork feats as the inquisitor for the purpose of determining whether the inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats. Her allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they actually possess the feats themselves. The allies’ positioning and actions must still meet the prerequisites listed in the teamwork feat for the inquisitor to receive the listed bonus.
I have an inquisitor with Solo Tactics, Outflank and Paired Opportunists. I also have two questions:
1 - With Paired Opportunists, I only get the +4 bonus to AoO if I’m adjacent to an ally (any ally, because of Solo Tactics). But if that ally scores a critical hit, I can have an AoO even if I’m not adjacent to him. Is that correct?
2 - If I’m flanking with an ally (who doesn’t have any teamwork feats) and I crit, Outflank says this provokes an attack of opportunity from my ally. With Solo Tactics, is it ok to consider that my critical hit does indeed provoke the attack of opportunity from my ally even if he doesn’t actually make that attack? Solo Tactics says that my allies don’t receive any bonuses from the teamwork feat, but I don’t know if provoking an attack of opportunity would be considered a bonus if no attack of opportunity is actually done. I’m asking because, according to the wording of Paired Opportunists, I only need an enemy to provoke an attack of opportunity from my ally (and not my ally actually making the attack) to make an AoO myself. Long story short: If I crit while I’m flanking with an ally, would I get to make an AoO (thanks to Paired Opportunists) because my ally provokes an AoO (because of Outflank) even if my ally doesn’t actually make the AoO (because of the wording in Solo Tactics)?
2 - Long story short: If I crit while I’m flanking with an ally, would I get to make an AoO (thanks to Paired Opportunists) because my ally provokes an AoO (because of Outflank) even if my ally doesn’t actually make the AoO (because of the wording in Solo Tactics)?
No, you would not.
The enemy never provokes an AoO from your ally, since that is considered a bonus (read: positive effect) of the teamwork feat. Having Paired Opportunists doesn't change this.
===
1 - With Paired Opportunists, I only get the +4 bonus to AoO if I’m adjacent to an ally (any ally, because of Solo Tactics). But if that allyscores a critical hitgets an AoO, I can have an AoO even if I’m not adjacent to him. Is that correct?
The second benefit of Paired Opportunists does not require you to be adjacent to your ally. If an enemy you and your ally threatens provokes an AoO from your ally, you would also get an AoO.
This would not work with Outflank, as explained above.
In game terms, Bonus just means plusses.
Many teamwork feats provide benefits that are not related to numerical pluses at all. Your interpretation would make Solo Tactics worthless, and I don't think it's intended. You're right noticing that Solo Tactics says "bonuses" instead of "benefits", but I'm fairly sure "benefits" is what "bonuses" means in this context. I've never seen this interpreted differently!
|
@Scott: in that context 'bonus' clearly means 'benefit'. Both RAW and RAI. It's just sloppy editing and poor word choice by the writers, who were probably working on the clock under a deadline. Only an excessively pedantic GM would needlessly dump on Solo Tactics that way, and they wouldn't even be right to do so. That level of pedantry amounts to a fundamentalist (literal word) interpretation of Pathfinder rules, which leads one down all sorts of foolish rabbit holes. Even as a PFS GM, trying to stick to RAW, that seems pretty clear.
One example of a similar level of GM pedantry might be: E.g. "You can't take an AoO with your longspear against the charging goblin, because it's charging you on the diagonal so it moves between 15' and 5' without ever being 10' away from you. Sorry, I don't acknowledge FAQs, I go by the original 1st edition core rule book, as it is the true enlightened word of Paizo."
I mean, sure, one can make a kinda weak argument for it, but the counter argument is pure reductio ad absurdum.
Inquisitor: If an inquisitor uses Solo Tactics (Advanced Player's Guide, page 40) with the Outflank feat (APG, page 165), does the enemy provoke attacks of opportunity when hit with a critical hit?
Yes, but only when the inquisitors allies score a critical hit against a foe that they both flank. In this case, the enemy provokes an attack of opportunity from the inquisitor. The reverse is not true, since her allies can only gain bonuses from teamwork feats if they themselves possess them.
Inquisitor: If an inquisitor uses Solo Tactics (Advanced Player's Guide, page 40) with the Outflank feat (APG, page 165), does the enemy provoke attacks of opportunity when hit with a critical hit?
Yes, but only when the inquisitors allies score a critical hit against a foe that they both flank. In this case, the enemy provokes an attack of opportunity from the inquisitor. The reverse is not true, since her allies can only gain bonuses from teamwork feats if they themselves possess them.
So that means that when the Inquisitor gets the Crit, the Ally does not get to take the Attack of Opportunity.
But the Inquisitor gets the Benefit of having an Attack of Opportunity the Ally getting provoked from the Ally. That is specifically one of the Benefits of Outflank, and the Inquisitor gets it as if the Ally had it.
Normally that wouldn't be much of an Benefit: what good is having an Attack of Opportunity Provoked that can't be taken? Well, with the addition of Paired Opportunist, "enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally provoke attacks of opportunity from you."
So, as an Inquisitor with Solo Tactics, Outflank, and Paired Opportunist, I get the Benefit of whenever I score a Crit, my target provokes and attack of opportunity from my ally, and whenever my enemy provoked an AoO from my ally, he provokes one from me, too.
I'm not sure that I follow the logic.
From the FAQ we know that if the inquisitor is using Outflank and an ally crits on an enemy, then the inquisitor gets an AoO thanks to outflank. We also know, if the inquisitor crits on an enemy said ally does not get an AoO.
Independently, because of paired opportunists if the ally gets an AoO then the inquisitor will also get an AoO. Like say the ally trips an opponent and they have vicious stomp. Because the ally gets an AoO the inquisitor also gets one, even though they wouldn't normally.
However, if you crit on an enemy as before your ally fails to get an AoO. Since they failed to get an AoO then paired opportunists fails to trigger because there is nothing for it to trigger off of. Any more then you would normally get an AoO from an ally tripping an enemy. There isn't some sort of "virtual" AoO that happens just because there "would of been one" if the ally had the appropriate feat (greater trip, vicious stomp, etc.).
@Scott: in that context 'bonus' clearly means 'benefit'.False. The context is Pathfinder Game terms. Benefit is a game term. Bonus is another.
Can you provide a rules citation in which benefit is a defined game term?
Bonuses have
Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
But I'm not aware of any rule which defines "benefit".
Can you provide a rules citation in which benefit is a defined game term?Feat Descriptions
Feats are summarized on Table: Feats below. Note that the prerequisites and benefits of the feats on this table are abbreviated for ease of reference. See the feats description for full details.
The following format is used for all feat descriptions.Feat Name: The feat's name also indicates what subcategory, if any, the feat belongs to, and is followed by a basic description of what the feat does.
Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or anything else required in order to take the feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite.
Benefit: What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.
Special: Additional unusual facts about the feat.
When I say Benefits, I am referring to the stuff the Feat you choose gives you.
What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
I was aware you'd changed your mind. I was just curious if I'd missed something in the rules, since I wasn't aware of any game definition for it.
I wouldn't consider the benefit line in the feats making it a game defined term - that's just the normal usage of the word benefit. But not a point I'm really interested in discussing.
Independently, because of paired opportunists if the ally gets an AoOThat's not quite correct. The benefit of Paired Opportunist
Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you threaten themSo, the Inquisitor's Ally does not need to actually get the AoO in order for the Inquisitor to get one. He needs the Attack of Opportunity to be provoked from his Ally.
I think there is some confusion about provoking an AoO vs making an AoO. Let's step it back to vicious stomp. Lets say that for whatever reason your ally is out of AoOs for the round but you are not and they trip an enemy. Because the ally has vicious stomp an AoO is triggered. However, because they are out of AoOs they are not able to do anything about it. In this scenario paired opportunists will still trigger because an AoO was triggered for your ally. It doesn't matter if they actually attack or not.
Now, several rounds later that same ally is flanking with you and they score a critical hit. Because you have Outflank and solo tactics you get an AoO against the enemy. Then on your turn you score a critical hit against the enemy. As per the FAQ this does not trigger an AoO for your ally. Even though they can make many AoO (thanks to combat reflexes). Because there was no AoO, paired opportunists has nothing to trigger off of. Paired Opportunists feeds off of your ally gaining a benefit from something, regardless of how or why the ally is gaining that benefit. Allies do not gain the benefits of your teamwork feats via solo tactics.
So that means that when the Inquisitor gets the Crit, the Ally does not get to take the Attack of Opportunity.Inquisitor: If an inquisitor uses Solo Tactics (Advanced Player's Guide, page 40) with the Outflank feat (APG, page 165), does the enemy provoke attacks of opportunity when hit with a critical hit?
Yes, but only when the inquisitors allies score a critical hit against a foe that they both flank. In this case, the enemy provokes an attack of opportunity from the inquisitor. The reverse is not true, since her allies can only gain bonuses from teamwork feats if they themselves possess them.
Please read the FAQ carefully. It explicitly states that the enemy doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity from the Inquisitor's allies. There is no AoO at all to consider.
Nobody is talking about the Ally getting any benefit. I am talking about the Inquisitor getting benefits. The Inquisitor's benefits I am describing in this case do not require the Ally to get anything.
One of the Benefits of Outflank is that "whenever you [the Inquisitor] score a critical hit, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally." The fact that the Ally does not actually get the AoO doesn't matter: the "provoke" requirement set by PO is explicitly met in the text of Outflank.
'
That the enemy provokes an AoO from your ally is not a benefit given to the Inquisitor. It is a benefit given to the ally, which means it doesn't happen.Since the provoked AoO doesn't happen, Paired Opportunists doesn't trigger.
The benefit of Outflank isn't "you may treat the flanked enemy as if they provoked an AoO from your ally", which would be needed to trigger Paired Opportunists in your hypothetical scenario. The Inquisitor doesn't gain anything from critically hitting the flanked enemy, so it's not affected by Solo Tactics.
Ah, here we are again. That is the part that is not true. The Benefit Paired Opportunist does not trigger when an Attack of Opportunity occurs. It triggers when an Attack of Opportunity is provoked.
yes, we are in agreement. It triggers when one is provoked, it doesn't matter if the ally actually makes an AoO. There is no reason to insist that we disagree on this point.
The FAQ tells us that an AoO is not provoked.
What about this scenario.
1: You are an inquisitor with solo tactics, paired opportunists, and outflank.
2: You have an ally that is flanking with you and only possesses the paired opportunists teamwork feat.
Now, you score a critical hit on the enemy. By the FAQ the enemy does not provoke an AoO from the ally. But, you're claiming that even though no AoO was provoked you get one. This results in both you and the ally getting an AoO based on an AoO that the ally never got to begin with.
Please keep in mind. I'm not talking about anyone actually attacking. I am only talking about provoking.
That the enemy provokes an AoO from your ally is not a benefit given to the Inquisitor.Yes, it is:
whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.It precisely is a benefit granted by the Outflank Feat to people that have the Feat. The rules say exactly that!
'
The ally is treated as if they have the feat only for deciding if the Inquisitor gains any bonus from it. This means, bolded, that any effect that grants your ally a bonus simply doesn't work.You're trying to argue that the theoretical AoO is a 'bonus' given to the Inquisitor, but it's very clear that giving out an AoO is not considered the bonus in this context.
Yes, you may say that it's not clear since you're holding a different interpretation. But you have already demonstrated that you have a problem with understanding context, so you will just have to trust us when we tell you that it doesn't work like that.
it's very clear that giving out an AoO is not considered the bonus in this context.The FAQ directly contradicts you! The FAQ makes it very plain that Solo Tactics can grant the Inquisitor Attacks of Opportunity.
'
Ironic. I even made sure to italicize the important part since I know you have a problem with context, but this just looks like you're trying to deliberately paint me in a bad light.One of the Benefits of Outflank is that "whenever you [the Inquisitor] score a critical hit, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally." The fact that the Ally does not actually get the AoO doesn't matter: the "provoke" requirement set by PO is explicitly met in the text of Outflank.
'
The 'bonus' of Outflank is that the enemy provokes an AoO from you if an ally critically hits. This is what Solo Tactics grants the Inquisitor in addition to the attack bonus.
If you critically hit an enemy, there is no AoO provoked at all since that would be considered a 'bonus' to your ally. The AoO you speak of doesn't happen at all, so it can't trigger Paired Opportunist.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
<3
The AoO you speak of doesn't happen at all, so it can't trigger Paired Opportunist.So, I was exactly correct, here: you think that if the Attack of Opportunity doesn't occur, it cannot have been provoked.
'
With all due respect, I believe that in this specific case you might be mistaken.The sentence you've quoted, and all of those before, refer to the act of provoking an AoO. I am thankful for your concern, but I am well aware of the difference between provoking and taking an AoO. In fact, unless otherwise specified, I am always talking about someone provoking an AoO.
So the sentence you've quoted should be read as:
"Paired Opportunists doesn't trigger, because nobody is provoking an AoO."
=======
=======
I am strongly of the opposite opinion of yours in this discussion, and will therefore try to persuade you to change yours. I believe the first hurdle in this social interaction will be to decide upon what a "bonus" in the context of Solo Tactics truly is.
Previously, you held the contrarian opinion that a "bonus" was only one dealing with numerical increases, as the typical definition of a bonus in pathfinder game terms usually is. Fortunately you quickly realized your mistake with the help of the FAQ you provided, which deals with Solo Tactics and Outflank.
So that means an Attack of Opportunity is provoked from me because Solo Tactics gives me the benefit of the Outflank Feat, which is to have an Attack of Opportunity provoked from you. The AoO isn't actually provoked from you, but Solo Tactics gives me the Benefit as if it were, and the Benefit from Outflank triggers the Benefit from Paired Opportunist.
'
This is a good example of where our differing interpretations are the most evident, as I do not believe it to be true. While it would be simple to conflate the term "bonus" from Solo Tactics with the general term "Benefit", that is not always the case.Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
'
If "bonus" truly meant "the benefit section", then an Inquisitor with Solo Tactics would be unable to gain AoOs since the act of giving out AoOs is part of the benefit section. And as noted, the Inquisitor's allies are prevented from receiving "bonuses" of the teamwork feats.But we know this to be untrue.
Inquisitor: If an inquisitor uses Solo Tactics (Advanced Player's Guide, page 40) with the Outflank feat (APG, page 165), does the enemy provoke attacks of opportunity when hit with a critical hit?
Yes, but only when the inquisitors allies score a critical hit against a foe that they both flank. In this case, the enemy provokes an attack of opportunity from the inquisitor. The reverse is not true, since her allies can only gain bonuses from teamwork feats if they themselves possess them.
'
This FAQ explains to us that "bonus" (in the context of Solo Tactics) doesn't mean "the benefit section", but rather a general expression of positive effects from teamwork feats. It is not to be confused with the whole benefit section of a feat.Giving out an AoO is not considered the bonus given to you by Solo Tactics.
Getting an AoO is considered the bonus given to you by Solo Tactics.
=======
=======
So you see, since the act of giving out an AoO is not considered the bonus given to you by Solo Tactics, Paired Opportunists would not trigger.
I get you are trying to say that no Attack of Opportunity is being provoked. I think it's because if your ally doesn't get the AoO, then the AoO can't have been provoked. Is that right?
Not quite. It would seem as if my explanations are lacking, since I've failed to get my point across.
I am saying that:
1) The enemy never provokes an AoO from your ally, so Paired Opportunist doesn't trigger.
2) You are also not treated as if the enemy provoked an AoO from your ally.
My first statement is easy to prove, as the quoted FAQ supports this view. The second statement is what I hoped to prove with my previous post, so I will attempt to summarize it.
===
Why you are not treated as if the enemy provoked an AoO from your ally:
So that means an Attack of Opportunity is provoked from me because Solo Tactics gives me the benefit of the Outflank Feat, which is to have an Attack of Opportunity provoked from you. The AoO isn't actually provoked from you, but Solo Tactics gives me the Benefit as if it were, and the Benefit from Outflank triggers the Benefit from Paired Opportunist.
'
While it would be simple to conflate the term "Bonus" from Solo Tactics with the general term "Benefit", I will explain why that is not the case for Outflank.Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
'
In addition to the increased flanking bonus, the "Benefit" of Outflank is to make enemies provoke AoOs from your allies. So if "Bonus" meant "Benefit", then the enemy could never provoke AoOs from the Inquisitor since only the act of giving out AoOs is part of the benefit section.
Your allies are not given any "bonuses" of the teamwork feats, so they would not be able to make the enemy provoke AoOs from the Inquisitor.
But we know this to be untrue thanks to the FAQ, which states that the enemy would indeed provoke AoOs from the Inquisitor. So the FAQ gives us indisputable proof that "Bonus" can't be conflated with "Benefit", and that gaining AoOs is considered the "Bonus" of Outflank.
|
|
But we know this to be untrue thanks to the FAQ, which states that the enemy would indeed provoke AoOs from the Inquisitor. So the FAQ gives us indisputable proof that "Bonus" can't be conflated with "Benefit", and that gaining AoOs is considered the "Bonus" of Outflank.
Excellent classic use of a reductio ad absurdum argument. That's exactly what I meant above when I first mentioned it.
|
In a separate but related case that this discussion has me considering...
Let’s say that my ally and I both DO have the Paired Opportunist and outflank feats. I crit the flanked enemy. Unfortunately, my ally can’t take the AOO. Maybe she’s grappling, or has already used her AOO that round. Would I still get an AOO via the Paired Opportunist feat since an AOO was provoked if not taken?
|
|
In a separate but related case that this discussion has me considering...
Let’s say that my ally and I both DO have the Paired Opportunist and outflank feats. I crit the flanked enemy. Unfortunately, my ally can’t take the AOO. Maybe she’s grappling, or has already used her AOO that round. Would I still get an AOO via the Paired Opportunist feat since an AOO was provoked if not taken?
It depends on why he can't take an attack of opportunity.
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.
In your first example, he doesn't get an AoO at all. A grappled/grappling character doesn't threaten anyone, so the feat doesn't trigger.
In the second (all AoO used), she still threatens the target, so the feat trigger and you receive the AoO.
The feat doesn't say "if your ally execute an AoO", it says "if the enemy provoke an AoO", so, as long as your ally threaten the enemy, it work.
This FAQ explains to us that "bonus" (in the context of Solo Tactics) doesn't mean "the benefit section", but rather a general expression of positive effects from teamwork feats. It is not to be confused with the whole benefit section of a feat.I don't see where you are getting this from or what distinction you are exactly trying to draw.
'
I understand. Maybe you could point out where you think my reasoning is flawed, and I could try to guide you through my line of thought?In addition to the increased flanking bonus, the "Benefit" of Outflank is to make enemies provoke AoOs from your allies. So if "Bonus" meant "Benefit", then the enemy could never provoke AoOs from the Inquisitor since only the act of giving out AoOs is part of the benefit section.
Your allies are not given any "bonuses" of the teamwork feats, so they would not be able to make the enemy provoke AoOs from the Inquisitor.But we know this to be untrue thanks to the FAQ, which states that the enemy would indeed provoke AoOs from the Inquisitor. So the FAQ gives us indisputable proof that "Bonus" can't be conflated with "Benefit", and that gaining AoOs is considered the "Bonus" of Outflank.
'
I believe I've provided a strong case for what the "Bonus" of Solo Tactics actually mean, and I'm sure you'll share my opinion once I manage to explain myself properly.The short of it is that if Solo Tactics truly gave you the "Benefit Section" of Outflank, then the enemy could never provoke AoOs from the Inquisitor. The FAQ contradicts this conclusion, which means that Solo Tactics does not give you the "Benefit Section" of Outflank.
Do you agree with the premise that the Inquisitor is not given the "Benefit Section" of the Outflank feat?
Meanwhile, I don’t see any justification within the rules for some other interpretation of “bonus that does not mean “Benefit.”
I'll unfortunately have to leave the rest of your post's statements for later, since this sentence seems to imply that I've yet to convince you.
The short of it is that if Solo Tactics truly gave you the "Benefit Section" of Outflank, then the enemy could never provoke AoOs from the Inquisitor. The FAQ contradicts this conclusion, which means that Solo Tactics does not give you the "Benefit Section" of Outflank.
I'll demonstrate my point even clearer than before, by substituting the text of Solo Tactics with the relevant part of the Outflank feat.
***
The "Benefit" of Outflank is the increased flanking bonus and the ability to make an enemy provoke an AoO from your ally. While the increased flanking bonus is attractive, it is not relevant for our discussion.
So for the purpose of the substitution, the "Benefit" of Outflank is the ability to "make an enemy provoke an AoO from your ally", or simply put the ability to "give out AoOs". Nothing about these statements should be debatable.
***
***
So by making a completely logical substitution, we end up with the following sentence:
'Her allies do not receive "the ability to give out AoOs" unless they actually possess "Outflank" themselves.'
But the FAQ states that the enemy would provoke an AoO from the Inquisitor, so the above sentence is false. Which means that Solo Tactics does not give you the "Benefit Section" of Outflank.
Is there anything here that you'd want further clarification on? After we're in agreement on this subject we'll move on to what "Bonus" actually means.