Butterfly's Sting loop hole? and the combo.


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

hey, i was reading the combat feat butter fly sting. it says that you have to worship a good deity. dose that mean you have to still be within one step? or can i be chaotic evil and still get this feat? if i can take it as a combat feat this would greatly improve my TWF scythe build.

2 levels titan mauler barbarian/ X- slayer

if i am wielding a nodochi and a scythe. if i crit with the nodachi ( i am considered my own ally. can a auto crit with my scythe ( provided i have another attack)? is this cheese? or am i fully within the rules.


Yes, you must be within one step of your god to receive benefits from worship. The 'good deity' is Desna as found in Faiths of Purity, but d20pfsrd can't use that name.

Yes, this is fully within the rules.

Scarab Sages

Usually it kukri/pick TWF fighting. You must worship Desna, and be within one step of CG.


Ipslore the Red wrote:

Yes, you must be within one step of your god to receive benefits from worship. The 'good deity' is Desna as found in Faiths of Purity, but d20pfsrd can't use that name.

Yes, this is fully within the rules.

Can you show me that FAQ or RAW? The feat seems to be very flexible. I really just want to cheese :). The feat dose not say you have to be with in one step. I know divine casters have this issue. But me being a martial class I see no reason to be within one step. I could be evil and still like desna right?


Expect some serious table variation concerning whether you qualify as your own ally in regards to this feat. (there's whole threads about this, so no need to rehash it here)

As far as the alignment thing goes, I believe there's something about it in the PFS rules or the FAQ. If it's not PFS, it's really up to your GM, as usual.


Byakko wrote:

Expect some serious table variation concerning whether you qualify as your own ally in regards to this feat. (there's whole threads about this, so no need to rehash it here)

As far as the alignment thing goes, I believe there's something about it in the PFS rules or the FAQ. If it's not PFS, it's really up to your GM, as usual.

Can you link the thread?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This FAQ says that you ARE your own ally.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9nda


graystone wrote:

This FAQ says that you ARE your own ally.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9nda

Thx Gray

Shadow Lodge

Here's one of the threads you're after.

"You count as your own ally, unless it doesn't make sense" isn't definitive here because nobody is 100% sure if it makes sense or not (it is quite a strange ability).


graystone wrote:

This FAQ says that you ARE your own ally.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9nda

No. That FAQ says

Quote:


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

A case can be made for this that it makes no sense in the context of this feat. A strong case for it? Not necessarily, but the case can be made.

An example, you cannot Aid Another yourself. It doesn't make sense to be able to do so.

There are other things that, on a case by case basis, do not make sense for you to count as your own ally. So the FAQ covers the common cases, but it is up to individual GM's to adjudicate various edge cases.


The default is that you are your own ally. That's clear from the link I posted.

Avatar-1, you're link doesn't go to a thread.

bbangerter wrote:
A case can be made for this that it makes no sense in the context of this feat.

I can't see how. I can't see how it would make no sense or be impossible for the character to be the "next ally who hits the creature with a melee attack before the start of your next turn". Is it possible? yes. Does it make sense? yes. Seems clear. To me it reads the next friendly person that hits in melee before your next turn gets the effect. How does it make sense to exclude the user? Even if it's the last attack, an AoO can hit before your next turn.

Now if you're saying someone can argue about something making sense then you can say that about anything in the game. The onus to prove it would be on the person claiming it didn't make sense as the default is you are your own ally.


graystone wrote:
I can't see how. I can't see how it would make no sense or be impossible for the character to be the "next ally who hits the creature with a melee attack before the start of your next turn". Is it possible? yes. Does it make sense? yes. Seems clear.
Me wrote:


A strong case for it? Not necessarily, but the case can be made.

/shrug


bbangerter wrote:
graystone wrote:
I can't see how. I can't see how it would make no sense or be impossible for the character to be the "next ally who hits the creature with a melee attack before the start of your next turn". Is it possible? yes. Does it make sense? yes. Seems clear.
Me wrote:


A strong case for it? Not necessarily, but the case can be made.
/shrug

There is a difference between a making a case and making a case that makes sense. You can always do the first... ;)

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:

I can't see how. I can't see how it would make no sense or be impossible for the character to be the "next ally who hits the creature with a melee attack before the start of your next turn". Is it possible? yes. Does it make sense? yes. Seems clear. To me it reads the next friendly person that hits in melee before your next turn gets the effect. How does it make sense to exclude the user? Even if it's the last attack, an AoO can hit before your next turn.

Now if you're saying someone can argue about something making sense then you can say that about anything in the game. The onus to prove it would be on the person claiming it didn't make sense as the default is you are your own ally.

Not at my table. "Next ally" would mean the next ally; ie not the same character.

The whole concept of using yourself as an ally is used much too liberally on this forum. I wish that the devs would have explained their thinking a little more than they did.


RedDogMT wrote:
graystone wrote:

I can't see how. I can't see how it would make no sense or be impossible for the character to be the "next ally who hits the creature with a melee attack before the start of your next turn". Is it possible? yes. Does it make sense? yes. Seems clear. To me it reads the next friendly person that hits in melee before your next turn gets the effect. How does it make sense to exclude the user? Even if it's the last attack, an AoO can hit before your next turn.

Now if you're saying someone can argue about something making sense then you can say that about anything in the game. The onus to prove it would be on the person claiming it didn't make sense as the default is you are your own ally.

Not at my table. "Next ally" would mean the next ally; ie not the same character.

The whole concept of using yourself as an ally is used much too liberally on this forum. I wish that the devs would have explained their thinking a little more than they did.

You can do whatever you wish at your table, that goes without saying. For me, it would have to say 'the next ally after the character turn' or something like that that points to the ally being a separate entity to rule that way. For instance if someone casts a spell that healed the next ally to take damage and then moved, setting off a trap that damages them. To me, it makes total sense that it'd heal the character that cast it. The ability only cares that they are next and they are friendly.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

graystone wrote:
You can do whatever you wish at your table, that goes without saying. For me...

So, you're saying "expect table variation," yes? :)


I run it as 'not self' also, for what it's worth.


I was thinking about it, and it doesn't really break anything if you run it as you being your ally.

You delay the crit, do normal damage and on your next attack crit. You're just pushing back the crit (which means you may lose it on your own attack and have to push it to another ally if you miss on attack/s after the crit) in most all normal instances.

The only situations I can see someone possibly getting "extra" out of it:
1) a flurry (where you can pick a different weapon for following attacks)
2) natural attack routine (where you can choose an attack from the routine)
3) a high BAB full attack who is wielding 2 weapons, and uses the crit on the "other" weapon (again the option to choose another weapon but not TWF to get additional attacks, but losing 2h damage for keeping the weapon option open)
4) a TWF who happens to crit on the last attack of their primary weapon and uses the crit on a high crit multiplier weapon on their off hand (as you have to finish the routine with the primary weapon before moving on to the off hand weapon)

None of these seem to really get anything "extra" that sets off the lights and sirens warning against "broken mechanics" to me.

I firmly believe RAI is, ally doesn't mean you, but I also don't see it breaking anything given the circumstances it takes to get something out of it. Losing 2h damage on crits would be offset by the "offhand" damage being added on a high multiplier weapon. And you are kinda taking a gamble on getting the crit in the first place, making your damage more "spikey" in that respect.


One thing Skylancer4 (and if I've misunderstood your post and you know this, then my apologies)is that you can choose to attack with any weapons in hand at any point in your attack routine without penalty as long as you don't take the extra attack for TWF. There is no requirement to declare all your attacks up front, or to roll all your attacks together (although many do to save time).

So a lvl12 fighter +12/+7/+2 with a kukri in one hand and a pick in the other is perfectly entitled to keep attacking with the Kukri until he threatens then switch to the pick.
e.g.
Kukri (no crit), Kukri (crit) Pick
Kukri (crit), Pick (miss), Pick
Kukri (crit), Pick (hit), Kukri (fishing for the next crit)

are all valid attack routines with no penalty to attack.

Not that that is why I have a problem with it, it just doesn't make sense to me. The only one who should benefit from soloing teamwork feats is the inquisitor. They are teamwork for a reason. I'll apply that FAQ where it makes sense, but not universally.


It's not a bug, it's a feature!


dragonhunterq wrote:

One thing Skylancer4 (and if I've misunderstood your post and you know this, then my apologies)is that you can choose to attack with any weapons in hand at any point in your attack routine without penalty as long as you don't take the extra attack for TWF. There is no requirement to declare all your attacks up front, or to roll all your attacks together (although many do to save time).

So a lvl12 fighter +12/+7/+2 with a kukri in one hand and a pick in the other is perfectly entitled to keep attacking with the Kukri until he threatens then switch to the pick.
e.g.
Kukri (no crit), Kukri (crit) Pick
Kukri (crit), Pick (miss), Pick
Kukri (crit), Pick (hit), Kukri (fishing for the next crit)

are all valid attack routines with no penalty to attack.

Not that that is why I have a problem with it, it just doesn't make sense to me. The only one who should benefit from soloing teamwork feats is the inquisitor. They are teamwork for a reason. I'll apply that FAQ where it makes sense, but not universally.

Whoa lets back up. So I can just attack with my kukri until I crit? Then swing with the scythe whenever? I thought you had to hit with the weapon in the off hand. Or am I miss reading?


arcanine wrote:
Ipslore the Red wrote:

Yes, you must be within one step of your god to receive benefits from worship. The 'good deity' is Desna as found in Faiths of Purity, but d20pfsrd can't use that name.

Yes, this is fully within the rules.

Can you show me that FAQ or RAW? The feat seems to be very flexible. I really just want to cheese :). The feat dose not say you have to be with in one step. I know divine casters have this issue. But me being a martial class I see no reason to be within one step. I could be evil and still like desna right?

Feats only dieties grant should only be useable by those at least close to the deity's general worshiping practice. Evil is no where close to the Good teachings of Desna.

Further more, the d20pfsrd removes anything specific to the default Pathfinder setting(Golorian), so you'll want to look at the Archives of Nethys instead.


FAQ


Well, here's something more cheese:

2 characters who both have Butterfly's Sting and Seize the Moment and Combat Reflexes with a very high Dex score. One person crits and then (as long as they keep hitting) they hit the enemy many, many times for that one attack.

ex. Dex 20 (each) = 11 hits and one crit.


Derek the Ferret wrote:

Well, here's something more cheese:

2 characters who both have Butterfly's Sting and Seize the Moment and Combat Reflexes with a very high Dex score. One person crits and then (as long as they keep hitting) they hit the enemy many, many times for that one attack.

ex. Dex 20 (each) = 11 hits and one crit.

LMAO, Yo I'm using this eldritch guardian with a mauler will be my next Character. This is amazing.

Scarab Sages

arcanine wrote:
Ipslore the Red wrote:

Yes, you must be within one step of your god to receive benefits from worship. The 'good deity' is Desna as found in Faiths of Purity, but d20pfsrd can't use that name.

Yes, this is fully within the rules.

Can you show me that FAQ or RAW? The feat seems to be very flexible. I really just want to cheese :). The feat dose not say you have to be with in one step. I know divine casters have this issue. But me being a martial class I see no reason to be within one step. I could be evil and still like desna right?

The actual text of the feat. Keep in mind when using d20pfsrd that any reference to an actual deity from the books will be replaced by a generic term, so it won't be accurate enough for PFS needs. As mentioned above, PFS requires worshipers of a god to be within one step, so you'd need to be Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral, or Neutral Good for this feat. Not to mention that, flavor-wise, you'd have to come across as a Desna worshiper, which will vary from GM to GM.

Granted, if you're evil then I imagine this isn't for PFS, which means it's just entirely up to your GM. :) In general, the worship feats still assume a step of one away, but it's always more flexible in a home game.


I did this with a witch 3 fighter 10 pc. My familiar was a lyrakie who dual wielded kukris. My pc wielded a tetsubo.


Rogar Stonebow wrote:
I did this with a witch 3 fighter 10 pc. My familiar was a lyrakie who dual wielded kukris. My pc wielded a tetsubo.

Did she have armor? Or a high dex? I'm worried about them getting shredded.


arcanine wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

One thing Skylancer4 (and if I've misunderstood your post and you know this, then my apologies)is that you can choose to attack with any weapons in hand at any point in your attack routine without penalty as long as you don't take the extra attack for TWF. There is no requirement to declare all your attacks up front, or to roll all your attacks together (although many do to save time).

So a lvl12 fighter +12/+7/+2 with a kukri in one hand and a pick in the other is perfectly entitled to keep attacking with the Kukri until he threatens then switch to the pick.
e.g.
Kukri (no crit), Kukri (crit) Pick
Kukri (crit), Pick (miss), Pick
Kukri (crit), Pick (hit), Kukri (fishing for the next crit)

are all valid attack routines with no penalty to attack.

Not that that is why I have a problem with it, it just doesn't make sense to me. The only one who should benefit from soloing teamwork feats is the inquisitor. They are teamwork for a reason. I'll apply that FAQ where it makes sense, but not universally.

Whoa lets back up. So I can just attack with my kukri until I crit? Then swing with the scythe whenever? I thought you had to hit with the weapon in the off hand. Or am I miss reading?

You can alternate main hand and off hand attacks in any order. But, you must always take your attacks from the highest to lowest BAB on that hand.

--So, Main Hand (Full BAB), Main Hand (first Iterative), Off Hand (Full BAB), Main Hand (Second Iterative), Off Hand (first Iterative), Off Hand (Second Iterative) is fine.

But, say you're working your way through mooks and want to be able to actually land a hit on the dangerous guy:

--Main Hand (Second Iterative), Off Hand (Second Iterative), Main Hand (First Iterative), Off Hand (First Iterative), Main Hand (Full BAB), Off Hand (Full BAB) cannot be done.


Akerlof wrote:
arcanine wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

One thing Skylancer4 (and if I've misunderstood your post and you know this, then my apologies)is that you can choose to attack with any weapons in hand at any point in your attack routine without penalty as long as you don't take the extra attack for TWF. There is no requirement to declare all your attacks up front, or to roll all your attacks together (although many do to save time).

So a lvl12 fighter +12/+7/+2 with a kukri in one hand and a pick in the other is perfectly entitled to keep attacking with the Kukri until he threatens then switch to the pick.
e.g.
Kukri (no crit), Kukri (crit) Pick
Kukri (crit), Pick (miss), Pick
Kukri (crit), Pick (hit), Kukri (fishing for the next crit)

are all valid attack routines with no penalty to attack.

Not that that is why I have a problem with it, it just doesn't make sense to me. The only one who should benefit from soloing teamwork feats is the inquisitor. They are teamwork for a reason. I'll apply that FAQ where it makes sense, but not universally.

Whoa lets back up. So I can just attack with my kukri until I crit? Then swing with the scythe whenever? I thought you had to hit with the weapon in the off hand. Or am I miss reading?

You can alternate main hand and off hand attacks in any order. But, you must always take your attacks from the highest to lowest BAB on that hand.

--So, Main Hand (Full BAB), Main Hand (first Iterative), Off Hand (Full BAB), Main Hand (Second Iterative), Off Hand (first Iterative), Off Hand (Second Iterative) is fine.

But, say you're working your way through mooks and want to be able to actually land a hit on the dangerous guy:

--Main Hand (Second Iterative), Off Hand (Second Iterative), Main Hand (First Iterative), Off Hand (First Iterative), Main Hand (Full BAB), Off Hand (Full BAB) cannot be done.

What!!! You can make your iterative attacks before your full bab attacks. That seems suspect and awesome if it works.


arcanine wrote:
Akerlof wrote:


--Main Hand (Second Iterative), Off Hand (Second Iterative), Main Hand (First Iterative), Off Hand (First Iterative), Main Hand (Full BAB), Off Hand (Full BAB) cannot be done.

What!!! You can make your iterative attacks before your full bab attacks. That seems suspect and awesome if it works.

No, look at the italics.

You have to make your attacks in order from the highest to lowest. But you do not need to alternate your main hand and off hand attacks in any specific way.


Akerlof wrote:
arcanine wrote:
Akerlof wrote:


--Main Hand (Second Iterative), Off Hand (Second Iterative), Main Hand (First Iterative), Off Hand (First Iterative), Main Hand (Full BAB), Off Hand (Full BAB) cannot be done.

What!!! You can make your iterative attacks before your full bab attacks. That seems suspect and awesome if it works.

No, look at the italics.

You have to make your attacks in order from the highest to lowest. But you do not need to alternate your main hand and off hand attacks in any specific way.

Oh ok my bad. I got too excited and skimmed over the rest.


arcanine wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
I did this with a witch 3 fighter 10 pc. My familiar was a lyrakie who dual wielded kukris. My pc wielded a tetsubo.
Did she have armor? Or a high dex? I'm worried about them getting shredded.

She had armor a 20+ dex and mirror image. My witch was a beastbonded witch so i gave her my fighter feats. It was awesome.


Rogar Stonebow wrote:
arcanine wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
I did this with a witch 3 fighter 10 pc. My familiar was a lyrakie who dual wielded kukris. My pc wielded a tetsubo.
Did she have armor? Or a high dex? I'm worried about them getting shredded.
She had armor a 20+ dex and mirror image. My witch was a beastbonded witch so i gave her my fighter feats. It was awesome.

Have you seen the eldritch guardian archetype? From the familiar folio book And the mauler familiar archetype. You have to go to the ogc site and choose classes>fighter archetypes> eldritch guardian. But I dont think he can get improved familiar because he dose not have caster levels.

And I'm guessing light armor.


arcanine wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
arcanine wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
I did this with a witch 3 fighter 10 pc. My familiar was a lyrakie who dual wielded kukris. My pc wielded a tetsubo.
Did she have armor? Or a high dex? I'm worried about them getting shredded.
She had armor a 20+ dex and mirror image. My witch was a beastbonded witch so i gave her my fighter feats. It was awesome.

Have you seen the eldritch guardian archetype? From the familiar folio book And the mauler familiar archetype. You have to go to the ogc site and choose classes>fighter archetypes> eldritch guardian. But I dont think he can get improved familiar because he dose not have caster levels.

And I'm guessing light armor.

Dunno bout that.

Yes on light armor, and boon companion was used.


I don't think you can benefit from your own Butterfly’s Sting because it automatically triggers on the next attack. You can't choose to pass it off to someone else. So if you use it for an attack earlier in the routine you have to use the crit on your next attack or forgo the rest of your full attack in order to pass it to a different ally.
The feat is obviously intended to let you pass the crit to another character, which is fairly broken by making you use it yourself.
This falls into the doesn't make sense category.


NikolaiJuno wrote:

I don't think you can benefit from your own Butterfly’s Sting because it automatically triggers on the next attack. You can't choose to pass it off to someone else. So if you use it for an attack earlier in the routine you have to use the crit on your next attack or forgo the rest of your full attack in order to pass it to a different ally.

The feat is obviously intended to let you pass the crit to another character, which is fairly broken by making you use it yourself.
This falls into the doesn't make sense category.

That's not actually true. It doesn't apply to the "next [successful melee] attack", rather it applies to your next ally successfully hitting with a melee attack. So even if you read yourself as an ally (which we already have wiggle room to dispense with for situations in which it doesn't make sense), you're not really your own next ally. Calling yourself your next ally is a really torturous language construction - maybe even bad enough for me to say that nobody rationally writes rules like that intending for the feat owner to be able to benefit from his own passed crit.

It really does not make you use it yourself if you have multiple attacks.


If you are your own ally, and you hit the target with a melee attack before any other ally does you are the next ally to hit that target with a melee attack.
The point is that that interpretation completely brakes the intended purpose of the feat, so it can't work that way.

Silver Crusade

arcanine wrote:
Akerlof wrote:
arcanine wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

One thing Skylancer4 (and if I've misunderstood your post and you know this, then my apologies)is that you can choose to attack with any weapons in hand at any point in your attack routine without penalty as long as you don't take the extra attack for TWF. There is no requirement to declare all your attacks up front, or to roll all your attacks together (although many do to save time).

So a lvl12 fighter +12/+7/+2 with a kukri in one hand and a pick in the other is perfectly entitled to keep attacking with the Kukri until he threatens then switch to the pick.
e.g.
Kukri (no crit), Kukri (crit) Pick
Kukri (crit), Pick (miss), Pick
Kukri (crit), Pick (hit), Kukri (fishing for the next crit)

are all valid attack routines with no penalty to attack.

Not that that is why I have a problem with it, it just doesn't make sense to me. The only one who should benefit from soloing teamwork feats is the inquisitor. They are teamwork for a reason. I'll apply that FAQ where it makes sense, but not universally.

Whoa lets back up. So I can just attack with my kukri until I crit? Then swing with the scythe whenever? I thought you had to hit with the weapon in the off hand. Or am I miss reading?

You can alternate main hand and off hand attacks in any order. But, you must always take your attacks from the highest to lowest BAB on that hand.

--So, Main Hand (Full BAB), Main Hand (first Iterative), Off Hand (Full BAB), Main Hand (Second Iterative), Off Hand (first Iterative), Off Hand (Second Iterative) is fine.

But, say you're working your way through mooks and want to be able to actually land a hit on the dangerous guy:

--Main Hand (Second Iterative), Off Hand (Second Iterative), Main Hand (First Iterative), Off Hand (First Iterative), Main Hand (Full BAB), Off Hand (Full BAB) cannot be done.

What!!! You can make your iterative attacks before your full bab attacks. That seems suspect and awesome if it...

I think you have too many attacks there anyway. You don't get iterative attacks with both main and off hands. If you have TWF and iterative attacks you get main and offhand at full bab, plus any iteratives attacks on your main hand. See the link above to the blog post that explains that.

Liberty's Edge

I'm pretty sure the "Does it make sense?" test for the FAQ was intended to mean "is this physically possible?" In other words, it's purely a sanity check, not something that's supposed to require RAI on the rule in question. If you can think of a simple way the ability can (mechanically) function when you're your own ally and don't need to add/remove/twist any text to do it, then you're fine. IMO it's fine to do the asymmetic dual-wield thing with this feat. It's a pretty cool idea and gives the character a risk/reward gambler feel to them.

As for the TWFing routine, the most complicated it gets is: {Main Hand, Off-Hand}, {Main Hand-5, Off-Hand-5, Natural-5}, {Main Hand-10, Off-Hand-10}, {Main Hand-15}

With haste, change first grouping to {Main Hand, Off-Hand, Any (not counted as off-hand)}. Each grouping can have its attacks done in any order, but the groupings can't be reordered. Main Hand and Off-Hand can be different weapons between groupings, the only requirement is that they're not the same weapon within one grouping (and that they be manufactured weapons. of ,course).

A four-armed eidolon with TWFing and IUS could potentially have a LOT of different valid attack orderings.

TL;DR: If you find yourself nit-picking wording to avoid the consequence of an interesting and cool combination, you might have to rethink your approach.

PS: You still need to meet them pre-requisites the right way, bud. It's a flavor prerequisite, so you have to meet it via flavor and not just RAW rules. If you want to be CE and take a feat for a CG god's followers then you best have a DAMN good explanation in your back-story and fully expect that to be a portion of the story. If it doesn't fit in the story, or your explanation sucks, then no rules exceptions will be coming your way.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
StabbittyDoom wrote:
I'm pretty sure the "Does it make sense?" test for the FAQ was intended to mean "is this physically possible?" In other words, it's purely a sanity check, not something that's supposed to require RAI on the rule in question. If you can think of a simple way the ability can (mechanically) function when you're your own ally and don't need to add/remove/twist any text to do it, then you're fine. IMO it's fine to do the asymmetic dual-wield thing with this feat. It's a pretty cool idea and gives the character a risk/reward gambler feel to them.

This simply isn't true, because if it was, Solo Tactics would do nothing.

I am my own ally. I have a Teamwork feat. Therefore there is an ally with the teamwork feat, allowing me benefit from it. Inquisitor Solo Tactics be damned, everyone could already do it per the FAQ.

Unless "Does it make sense?" means the feat is clearly intended to not apply to you.

Gang Up needs three people total attacking, not two because you are your own ally because it does not make sense otherwise.

Teamwork Feats need two separate people with the feat because it doesn't make sense.

And Butterfly's Sting requires you to grant the crit to someone else, because it doesn't make sense.

Shadow Lodge

Oops, here's the original thread I was trying to link to earlier.


In my mind, the key distinguishing factor is whether the term "ally" is being used to simply state what type of target is legal or possible, or alternatively, whether a second -different- ally is needed/implied.

As pointed out earlier, it doesn't make sense to allow Aid Another on the same character. (because it implies aiding a distinct 2nd entity)

Another example is arguing that a creature can flank with itself. For example, if a Tiny creature was in the middle of a Huge creature's squares, the huge creature is on either side of the tiny creature. Is this a flank? Again, flanking implies a second, different, creature is needed, and thus the answer should be no.

Finally, Butterfly's Sting is worded with "next ally", which implies to me that it requires a second individual. (and while not rules text, the flavor text indicates this even more strongly). Finally, I believe the RAI is fairly clear in this case. While RAI is often disregarded in this forum, I feel is should be taken into consideration in cases like these.

TL/DR?
Expect some serious table variation concerning whether you qualify as your own ally in regards to this feat.


dragonhunterq wrote:

One thing Skylancer4 (and if I've misunderstood your post and you know this, then my apologies)is that you can choose to attack with any weapons in hand at any point in your attack routine without penalty as long as you don't take the extra attack for TWF. There is no requirement to declare all your attacks up front, or to roll all your attacks together (although many do to save time).

So a lvl12 fighter +12/+7/+2 with a kukri in one hand and a pick in the other is perfectly entitled to keep attacking with the Kukri until he threatens then switch to the pick.
e.g.
Kukri (no crit), Kukri (crit) Pick
Kukri (crit), Pick (miss), Pick
Kukri (crit), Pick (hit), Kukri (fishing for the next crit)

are all valid attack routines with no penalty to attack.

Not that that is why I have a problem with it, it just doesn't make sense to me. The only one who should benefit from soloing teamwork feats is the inquisitor. They are teamwork for a reason. I'll apply that FAQ where it makes sense, but not universally.

Was covered by point 3. If you are attacking with one weapon to crit (crit range), you still need to be wielding the other weapon (crit multiplier) in order to attack with it. Barring shenanigans, you will be using weapons 1 handed so wouldn't be getting str & half from 2 handing a weapon on the crit multiplier weapon.

You aren't actually gaining anything you wouldn't normally have access to, which is why it isn't a "problem" to me. No double dipping on str or anything like that. And you still have the capacity to "lose" the crit on your crit multiplier attack by missing (1's happen).


StabbittyDoom wrote:
I'm pretty sure the "Does it make sense?" test for the FAQ was intended to mean "is this physically possible?" In other words, it's purely a sanity check, not something that's supposed to require RAI on the rule in question.
Skylancer4 wrote:
You aren't actually gaining anything you wouldn't normally have access to, which is why it isn't a "problem" to me.

So you don't think that the fact that it near completely breaks the original purpose of the feat and replaces it with something different is a problem?


NikolaiJuno wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
I'm pretty sure the "Does it make sense?" test for the FAQ was intended to mean "is this physically possible?" In other words, it's purely a sanity check, not something that's supposed to require RAI on the rule in question.
Skylancer4 wrote:
You aren't actually gaining anything you wouldn't normally have access to, which is why it isn't a "problem" to me.
So you don't think that the fact that it near completely breaks the original purpose of the feat and replaces it with something different is a problem?

The purpose, mechanically, was to pass a possible crit to a later point. You being your "ally" doesn't change this mechanic and in fact makes it worse than passing it on to another ally. You are choosing to put the crit onto a single handed weapon (assuming you are trying to make the most of the situation) when you could be putting it onto a 2h weapon and getting more damage output. You are also decreasing your chances of hitting as if you are TWF you are taking a penalty OR if you are just using BAB routine, you are taking a -5 to hit on the next attack.

It is a sub par choice to pass it to yourself. End of story. If you want to reduce your possible damage output, go for it. I'm fine with that.

Passing to crit to the power attacking, raging, 2h'ing barbarian with the x4 weapon is the mechanically superior choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Skylancer you seem to be missing the point, the attack it gets passed on to is always the next applicable attack. If you count as your ally and hit with another attack you must take the crit. There is n o choosing to take the crit. Ruling that this is how this feat works is ruling that it's always how it works, and that brakes the feat.


NikolaiJuno wrote:
Skylancer you seem to be missing the point, the attack it gets passed on to is always the next applicable attack. If you count as your ally and hit with another attack you must take the crit. There is n o choosing to take the crit. Ruling that this is how this feat works is ruling that it's always how it works, and that brakes the feat.

Actually, Butterfly Sting states that the next ally's attack is automatically confirmed as a critical. When you confirm a critical, you can choose to pass it forwards to the next ally's attack. This means that if you confirm a critical you can pass it to your next attack, which auto confirms and gets passed along to your next attack, which auto confirms and gets passed along to your next attack, which auto confirms and blah blah blah so on and so forth until you accept the critical, miss, or pass it to the next character.

Edit: By the way, this could be really nasty on a mutagenic warrior with a third arm; kukri in one hand, scythe in the other two. ;)


Deadbeat Doom wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:
Skylancer you seem to be missing the point, the attack it gets passed on to is always the next applicable attack. If you count as your ally and hit with another attack you must take the crit. There is n o choosing to take the crit. Ruling that this is how this feat works is ruling that it's always how it works, and that brakes the feat.

Actually, Butterfly Sting states that the next ally's attack is automatically confirmed as a critical. When you confirm a critical, you can choose to pass it forwards to the next ally's attack. This means that if you confirm a critical you can pass it to your next attack, which auto confirms and gets passed along to your next attack, which auto confirms and gets passed along to your next attack, which auto confirms and blah blah blah so on and so forth until you accept the critical, miss, or pass it to the next character.

Edit: By the way, this could be really nasty on a mutagenic warrior with a third arm; kukri in one hand, scythe in the other two. ;)

Oh wow I didn't even think of it like that. If you crit you can help the whole party auto hit the boss if they all,have it.


arcanine wrote:
Deadbeat Doom wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:
Skylancer you seem to be missing the point, the attack it gets passed on to is always the next applicable attack. If you count as your ally and hit with another attack you must take the crit. There is n o choosing to take the crit. Ruling that this is how this feat works is ruling that it's always how it works, and that brakes the feat.

Actually, Butterfly Sting states that the next ally's attack is automatically confirmed as a critical. When you confirm a critical, you can choose to pass it forwards to the next ally's attack. This means that if you confirm a critical you can pass it to your next attack, which auto confirms and gets passed along to your next attack, which auto confirms and gets passed along to your next attack, which auto confirms and blah blah blah so on and so forth until you accept the critical, miss, or pass it to the next character.

Edit: By the way, this could be really nasty on a mutagenic warrior with a third arm; kukri in one hand, scythe in the other two. ;)

Oh wow I didn't even think of it like that. If you crit you can help the whole party auto hit the boss if they all,have it.

Unfortunately, it doesn't help with hitting at all; you just don't have to deal with crit ranges or confirmation rolls.

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Butterfly's Sting loop hole? and the combo. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.