[3.P] Solo Tactics and Betrayal Feats on "Allies"?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Most teamwork feats are abysmally awful (basically like the lion's share of other PF non-casting feats), but the betrayal feats are unusual in that some of them actually do grant decently good benefits at the expense of allies gaining penalties. Unfortunately, A.) you have to screw over an ally to get the benefit, and B.) you have to convince your "friends" to also take the feat so you can screw them over.

But in 3.5, "ally" and "enemy" are pretty flexible -- basically, they're whatever you designate them as at any given moment, which takes care of A. Any "ally" who has the betrayal feat gives you incentive to screw the rules, I have money! them over, even if they want to kill you and dance on your grave. But how often do you have hostile "allies" that take the feats you want?

That's where the inquisitor comes in. They have an ability called Solo Tactics (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor#TOC-Solo-Tactics-Ex-), which allows you to use your teamwork feats on allies, though they don't get actually use or benefit from the feats themselves.

So designate foes as "allies," hit 'em with Solo Tactics, and then use your betrayal feat on 'em. Hey, there are some useful non-caster feats in Pathfinder after all!

Any other ideas on how to use this setup?

[Ssalarn]

Okay, so bad news- Betrayal feats (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/betrayal-feats) shared by abilities like Solo Tactics only allow you to act as the abettor. That means you can set yourself up to be betrayed by your allies, but you cannot execute the betrayal against them unless they also have the actual feat.
So, even if you designate an opponent as your ally without the GM throwing a book at you, all you're doing is opening yourself up so your enemies can use you as a human shield.


Characters with class abilities granting allies access to teamwork feats (such as cavaliers or inquisitors) can select these teamwork feats normally, but allies who are granted these feats can use the feats only as initiators, not as abettors. An inquisitor could not grant an ally the Ally Shield feat and then use the ally as a shield, for example, but he could allow that ally to use him as a shield.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Okay, so bad news- Betrayal feats (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/betrayal-feats) shared by abilities like Solo Tactics only allow you to act as the abettor. That means you can set yourself up to be betrayed by your allies, but you cannot execute the betrayal against them unless they also have the actual feat.
So, even if you designate an opponent as your ally without the GM throwing a book at you, all you're doing is opening yourself up so your enemies can use you as a human shield.Well, that's...a really, really stupid way to go about doing it. Like, seriously retarded. Especially since the feats themselves specify that it's the holder of the feat that's getting the benefit (and the word "betrayal" itself indicates such). Give these writers a helmet and keep 'em away from sharp objects, because they're a danger to themselves and others.

Then again, they ARE writing non-magical feats in Pathfinder. I guess I should expect that by now.

[edit] Actually, the way the feats themselves are written, that passage you quoted is overridden, since you're the one who initiates and gains the bonus of those feats. Specific vs general, and that passage is rendered null and void for all of them.

[Ssalarn]

[edit] Actually, the way the feats themselves are written, that passage you quoted is overridden, since you're the one who initiates and gains the bonus of those feats. Specific vs general, and that passage is rendered null and void for all of them.

Yeah... I wouldn't buy that, and I actually agree with you that it's terrible. The feats are clearly defined in how the functions work with abettors and initiators, so you can't say that the fact they don't reiterate a clearly defined general rule in their specific text creates a specific trumps general situation. There's nothing contradictory within the established framework. Good luck!

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Yeah... I wouldn't buy that, and I actually agree with you that it's terrible. The feats are clearly defined in how the functions work with abettors and initiators, so you can't say that the fact they don't reiterate a clearly defined general rule in their specific text creates a specific trumps general situation. There's nothing contradictory within the established framework. Good luck!Looking a bit closer, that does weird things to the way the feats work. Like with Callous Casting (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/betrayal-feats/callous-casting-betrayal-teamwork), it means you have to cast the spell on yourself, your enemies gain the penalties, and you get to move, too.

The whole thing is just weird and dumb.


Benefit(s): You initiate this feat by including [you] in the area of any spell that deals damage of a type to which [you are] not immune.

The callousness of the attack disheartens foes in the area, who must succeed at a Will save against the spell's DC or be shaken for 1 round per spell level. After you resolve the spell's effects, [you] can move up to [your] speed as an immediate action. Any movement undertaken using this action is then subtracted from [your] speed until the end of [your] next turn. This movement can still provoke attacks of opportunity as normal. Once a foe has attempted a Will save against this feat, he is immune to this effect from [your "allies" (that is, other foes, but not you)] for 24 hours thereafter.