|
| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You put yourself in danger’s path to save your allies.
Prerequisite: Bodyguard.
Benefit: While using the aid another action to improve an adjacent ally’s AC, you can intercept a successful attack against that ally as an immediate action, taking full damage from that attack and any associated effects (bleed, poison, etc.). A creature cannot benefit from this feat more than once per attack.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A few questions.
1) Regarding the wording "full damage", would DR still apply?
2) Regarding poison, do I still get a save?
3) How does this work with sneak attack? Say a rogue was flanking the ally, but the bodyguard was not flanked. Would the bodyguard still get the sneak attack damage?
4) If sneak attack damage does apply, could it still be negated by fortification?
5) Same as #4 but regarding a critical hit on the ally.
6) Any other nifty things I need to know that I've missed.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
1) Regarding the wording "full damage", would DR still apply?
2) Regarding poison, do I still get a save?
3) How does this work with sneak attack? Say a rogue was flanking the ally, but the bodyguard was not flanked. Would the bodyguard still get the sneak attack damage?
4) If sneak attack damage does apply, could it still be negated by fortification?
5) Same as #4 but regarding a critical hit on the ally.
6) Any other nifty things I need to know that I've missed.
I have no rules to back up any of this, but off the top of my head I would probably say:
1) Yes, your DR if any would apply.
2) Yes, you get to save vs the poison, just like the original target would.
3) Yes, sneak attack damage would still apply.
4&5) Yes, fortification could still apply.
6) What about Uncanny Dodge, if the original target was flanked and going to take sneak attack, but you have uncanny dodge, do you still take the sneak attack damage? (I lean toward yes)
I'm not sure why fortification would apply but uncanny wouldn't. Maybe because you're choosing to jump in the way, so you can't dodge out of it, but your magic armor still does magic to try to make it hurt less?
|
|
No, no, I didn't say anything about dodging the attack completely. Clearly the visual involves taking the hit for your ally. But at the same time it also makes sense that not all blows are going to be as effective as those meant for the intended target.
Okay, so, we seem to all be on the same page regarding DR. And that any saving throws will need to be made by the bodyguard. My thinking is that Fortification would work as well. Imagine this: a natural 20 is rolled to hit an ally under the effect of the Bodyguard feat. That's going to hit, so In Harm's Way triggers, and the original target of the attack (which is not a critical yet) changes. Now the attacker rolls to confirm, and does. Any abilities like Fortification would now trigger.
BUT, if we agree on that, then I can't see sneak attack triggering, because after the attack hits (and thus the bodyguard does his thing), the new target is checked for what conditions he is affected by and it is determined that he isn't flat-footed or unable to defend himself.
Any thoughts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always thought the principle behind sneak attack was that they were able to get in a particularly accurate stab in to a particularly tender place to a guy who doesnt see it coming.
Which seems phenominally harder to do on a target that is purposefully suddenly flying akimbo across your thrust path and very definitely knows the attack is coming... I'd personally be ok with taking a blow for someone removing the sneak attack flag because you just got in the way of the tender bit the sneak attack was headed for. Does the stabber somehow have the ability to find a new tender bit on you as you enter the path of his stab? Seems unlikely.
I think critical would still apply. This was a solid hardcore hit you're jumping in the way of.
So if I were allowing this kind of thing I'd say
1 Yes
2 Yes
3 No
4 No longer an issue
5 Yes
6 Again becomes a moot point since 3 takes care of it.
Thats my 2 cents.
Perhaps as an added punchline to this diving save you could rule the heroic defender was prone since his quick reflexive defense of his buddy required an akimbo dive into harms way, but perhaps that is going overboard. Perhaps your version of it isn't a swan dive into harms way as much as my mind gravitates to such theatrics. Maybe an acrobatics check not to be prone...
I would say bane, favored enemy, etc would be checked against the recipient of the damage. So, favored enemy Elves would be useless when the human bodyguard absorbs the blow.
|
|
Cool. I hope one of the higher-ups notices this thread and makes a more definitive ruling on whether Sneak Attack would be negated, too. The more I look at it the more that's how I would rule it in my games. But the next character I'm contemplating bringing to PFS would have this feat progression, so I want to make sure it works instead of needing to convince every GM I encounter.
Sorry, I disagree. To me, "taking full damage from that attack and any associated effects (bleed, poison, etc.)" means that the bodyguard suffers the entire damage that the target would have suffered. The bodyguard takes the FULL damage, whether it makes "sense" or no, because the rules say so. Only a literal meaning of "full" damage makes this feat balanced. Otherwise, you can use the feat to reduce the damage that would have been done. How can "reduced" damage mean the same thing as "full" damage?
If the bodyguard can reduce the damage inflicted, why does it say "full damage"?
On the plus side, if the bodyguard would have been especially vulnerable to extra damage (elfbane weapon vs human, intercepted by elf bodyguard), the bodyguard would not take extra damage beyond the full damage the intended target would have suffered, in my personal opinion.
Cayzle it probably says full damage because it is not being split in some fashion with the person initially getting hit. Example: Shield Other.
I see this as you taking the hit, then work out the damage normally. That may or may not be RAW, I'm too tired to analyze it right now.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I disagree. To me, "taking full damage from that attack and any associated effects (bleed, poison, etc.)" means that the bodyguard suffers the entire damage that the target would have suffered. The bodyguard takes the FULL damage, whether it makes "sense" or no, because the rules say so. Only a literal meaning of "full" damage makes this feat balanced. Otherwise, you can use the feat to reduce the damage that would have been done. How can "reduced" damage mean the same thing as "full" damage?
If the bodyguard can reduce the damage inflicted, why does it say "full damage"?
On the plus side, if the bodyguard would have been especially vulnerable to extra damage (elfbane weapon vs human, intercepted by elf bodyguard), the bodyguard would not take extra damage beyond the full damage the intended target would have suffered, in my personal opinion.
So what you're telling me is that if I'm immune to poison because I'm a monk with Diamond Body, and I use In Harm's Way to intercept a poisoning attack, I'll still become poisoned?
Cool. I hope one of the higher-ups notices this thread and makes a more definitive ruling on whether Sneak Attack would be negated, too. The more I look at it the more that's how I would rule it in my games. But the next character I'm contemplating bringing to PFS would have this feat progression, so I want to make sure it works instead of needing to convince every GM I encounter.
I would still apply sneak attack, unless the new recipient was immune to sneak attack damage. I probably wouldn't allow Uncanny Dodge to protect against it. Positioning doesn't matter. Like everyone else, I have no basis for this, other than my own general sense of the rules.
I would require this to be used after the attack roll was made and the attack declared a success but before the crit confirmation roll was made. That way you would directly roll to confirm vs the bodyguard. Or at least I'd compare the confirmation roll vs the bodyguard's AC even if the roll was already made.
But as I have no RAW to back this up this might be a HR.
Roberta asked: "So what you're telling me is that if I'm immune to poison because I'm a monk with Diamond Body, and I use In Harm's Way to intercept a poisoning attack, I'll still become poisoned?"
Well, the feat as written specifically says you take full damage from poison. It does not say "full damage except if you are immune." The rules seem pretty clear to me on this, You are putting yourself in harm's way -- even if you usually would not be at risk. You are dropping your protections to take the harm that would have accrued to your friend.
If your friend is immune to poison, however, I would rule that the poisoned attack does not apply to the bodyguard.
From a meta, game balance perspective, the clear abuse of this feat is to load up your bodyguard with every resistance, immunities, and damage reductions, and send him out to take the blow for the harm. This would let the party conserve resources by giving letting one PC's protections apply to two or three PCs. That's way beyond the power of a single feat in the Core rulebook.
In my opinion, the bodyguard stands in for the ally. And takes the exact damage the ally would have.
Well, the feat as written specifically says you take full damage from poison. It does not say "full damage except if you are immune." The rules seem pretty clear to me on this, You are putting yourself in harm's way -- even if you usually would not be at risk. You are dropping your protections to take the harm that would have accrued to your friend.
If your friend is immune to poison, however, I would rule that the poisoned attack does not apply to the bodyguard.
Take a step back for a moment and read what you just wrote.
You spend a feat and two actions (aid another + immediate) to be the target of the attack.
If you spend other feats or abilities to mitigate or prevent some damage this is totally ok, no abuse at all. So the "full damage" you are dealt is only before your own mitigation.
If you have DR or fortification it will apply. And that is good.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monk and Fighter (Armor Master) are adventuring together and have this feat.
GM: The venomous monster bites the fighter. *rolls* A hit.
Monk: Don't worry, I'll protect you! I use In Harm's Way.
GM: Okay. You take *rolls* 18 damage, but it's reduced to 12 by DR.
Monk: What DR? I don't have any DR.
GM: Yeah, but he does.
Fighter: What, me?
GM: Yeah, the heavy adamantine armor your friend was wearing protected you, so you took less damage.
Monk: But I was the one that was hit, not him. The attack didn't even go near his armor.
GM: Do you not understand what "full damage" means? Also, you're poisoned.
Monk: Nope, immune. Diamond Body.
GM: Your immunity doesn't apply. The feat doesn't say you get to ignore poison just because you're immune to it.
Monk: Do you not understand what "immune" means?
GM: Well, you put yourself in the way of the attack, so you're compromising your defenses.
Monk: Intercepting an attack compromises my immune system and my pure body?
GM: Anyhow, the point is that Fighter isn't immune to poison.
Monk: Fighter wasn't hit by the attack, I was. The fangs didn't go anywhere near Fighter's immune system, why should they matter?
GM: Oh, I see, you're one of those powergamers who just wants to give everyone free resistances and maybe have a pony all the time.
Monk: What?
Fighter: What?
GM: Moving on! The monster attacks again with its second head, biting the monk. *rolls* Another hit.
Fighter: I'll intercept this one.
GM: Okay. You take *rolls* 19 damage.
Figther: Which is reduced to 13 because of my armor.
GM: No, the monk isn't wearing armor.
Fighter: But I'm the one who was hit, and I am wearing armor.
GM: Doesn't matter, the monk was the original target, so your damage reduction doesn't apply. On the bright side, you're immune to poison.
Fighter: No I'm not.
GM: Yeah, the monk's Diamond Body protects you from being poisoned.
Monk: Wait, my Diamond Body protects Fighter from poison but doesn't protect me?
GM: Obviously, that's just common sense. Didn't you read the feat?
Next round:
GM: The enemy cleric begins casting a spell! He steps forward and makes a touch attack against the fighter. *rolls* It connects.
Monk: In Harm's Way. The cleric touches me instead.
GM: Okay. Make a Will save... using Fighter's will save bonus instead of your own.
Monk: You must be joking.
GM: The fighter was the original target, so his mental resistance determines how you are affected.
Monk: No, seriously, this is stupid.
GM: I don't see how any other interpretation is possible.
Fighter: Look, don't you think-
GM: Shut up! I'm sick to death of you min-maxers. You think that you can just spend one feat and its prerequisites and suddenly you're able to grant all of your resistances to everyone else in the party but only against the effects that use attack rolls and only once per round and at the cost of taking damage and at the cost of your attacks of opportunity and swift actions and only against the one attack you chose to use Aid Another to prevent before the attack roll was made and only if you and the person you are protecting are both adjacent to the attacker? It says you take full damage, and that means you are affected by the attack in the exact same way that the original target would have been, using the original target's defenses, regardless of how little sense that makes.
|
|
It's the wording of "full damage" that initially prompted me to post this. People that lean more towards RAW are the ones I would have to convince in a PFS game. So far I've seen some crazy interpretations at the table regarding other rules, with some debates that dragged our games an extra hour longer.
Roberta, that example is perfect. Lol. Thank you.
Cayzle, to "load up your bodyguard with every resistance, immunity, and damage reduction" is usually what bodyguards do, whether it be in real life or fantasy.
This particular setup requires 3 feats, and you can only protect one ally, which must be adjacent to you, each round. For my purposes, this actually wouldn't be achievable until 5th level, and since it's PFS, I probably won't have the money for Adamantine Full Plate until a couple levels later.
Nice story about a monk and a fighter...
You brought it to the point. Well done.
LOLOL! Roberta, you totally made me laugh!
Of course, falling 10,000 ft and hitting the ground for 20d6 makes me laugh too. You can play the rules in a way that makes sense, or you can play them as written.
Until the Powers That Be adjudicate the issue, I suppose every DM will have to interpret the feat as he or she sees fit. I hope I've given folks here food for thought.
But what do the rules as written say? All they say is "full damage"; you're the only one extrapolating that to mean "The monk's Diamond Body makes the fighter immune to poison but leaves the monk vulnerable to being poisoned."
It isn't even a RAW versus RAI issue because RAW doesn't even come close to saying what you're proposing.
|
Why am I the only one who clicked the FAQ button on the first post of this thread? Not that I agree with Cazyle's odd interpretation, but there are questions brought up in this thread that I'd be curious to get an official answer about, especially since I'm considering taking this feat for a PFS PC.
All I'm saying is that if the bodyguard has Fire Resistance 30, and he guards someone who takes 25 hp damage from a Scorching Ray, how does taking "full damage" mean he takes no damage?
If the bodyguard is a mage using gaseous form, does his DR10/magic still reduce the damage? What if the bodyguard is incorporeal, and "immune to all nonmagical attack forms"? If the bodyguard is invisible or displaced, is there still a miss chance?
A stock kobold with a club and a +1 attack mod swings at a fellow kobold, a turncoat who led the heroes to the kobold lair. One hero, a 15th level fighter with this feat and an AC in the 40s, takes the blow. Why does the fighter take any damage, following what makes sense? The kobold could only touch the fighter with a natural 20, which he did not get. Clearly, the fighter opens himself to the attack in order to get In Harm's Way, and takes damage he would usually not take.
I do not wish to be contentious. I do think the feat leaves many questions unanswered. It seems to me that the feat has this power: Take damage that would have been inflicted on a friend and instead inflict it on the bodyguard. Reducing that damage seems to me to make this feat too powerful, I would say, and, moreover, cannot be supported unless you say full damage is actually not full damage.
That's my opinion.
Edit: First post flagged for FAQ.
|
I would rule that all effects of the attack are stacked as if the target was going to get hit (ie sneak attack, critical confirmation et al) and then the effects are delivered to the bodyguard who can then use DR, fortification, immunities and resistances to absorb it as best he can.
Note that I would rule that any added damage based on the nature of the target (ie favored enemy, bane weapon) would not be dealt to the bodyguard. However, a human bodyguard intercepting a human bane attack against an elven target would get the additional damage.
Side note : the definition of sneak attack states that the rogue's attack deals extra damage based on the condition of the target. If the target meets the condition for sneak attack, the attack deals sneak attack damage, even though it actually hurts the bodyguard (regardless of whether or not the bodyguard meets the aforementioned condition).
Also, based on the same text, if the rogue's attack would not deal sneak attack damage to the target, then it would not deal it to the bodyguard even if the Rogue was flanking the bodyguard.
|
All I'm saying is that if the bodyguard has Fire Resistance 30, and he guards someone who takes 25 hp damage from a Scorching Ray, how does taking "full damage" mean he takes no damage?
If the bodyguard is a mage using gaseous form, does his DR10/magic still reduce the damage? What if the bodyguard is incorporeal, and "immune to all nonmagical attack forms"? If the bodyguard is invisible or displaced, is there still a miss chance?
A stock kobold with a club and a +1 attack mod swings at a fellow kobold, a turncoat who led the heroes to the kobold lair. One hero, a 15th level fighter with this feat and an AC in the 40s, takes the blow. Why does the fighter take any damage, following what makes sense? The kobold could only touch the fighter with a natural 20, which he did not get. Clearly, the fighter opens himself to the attack in order to get In Harm's Way, and takes damage he would usually not take.
The fighter opens himself up to the attack in that he forfeits any defenses that would prevent the attack from actually connecting. That includes AC and any miss chance due to being invisible or displaced. The bodyguard has to physically intercept the attack; the attack must hit.
I would rule that an incorporeal bodyguard cannot intercept an attack that couldn't affect an incorporeal target simply because when the bodyguard tried to physically interpose themselves between the attack and the target, the attack passes through the incorporeal creature to no effect and hits its intended target. (I might also apply a fail-to-intercept chance on a Blinking bodyguard.)
However, once the attack connects with the bodyguard, you treat it as though the bodyguard were the intended target. He takes full damage and any other effects, but that damage or effect is then reduced by any resistances or immunities he has, and any save uses the bodyguard's save bonus. This does allow the bodyguard's DR or immunities to benefit more than one character, but keep in mind that this is something the bodyguard can only do once per round and only when adjacent. At minimum that requires the bodyguard and the protected person to forfeit other positioning benefits, like flanking. It's also risky to load too many protections on the bodyguard at the other players' expense, since some attacks will get through to their intended targets and if those targets don't have minimal defenses it will hurt.
Compare Paladin's Sacrifice, a spell which does something similar and allows the Paladin's resistances and immunities to apply.
I'm not sure whether Sneak Attack should apply, since the bodyguard doesn't have special resistance (Uncanny Dodge is an "evasion" ability), but the conditions for Sneak Attack likely don't apply to the bodyguard.
The suggestion that a gaseous or incorporeal thing is trying to dive in front of an attack amuses me.
|
|
Side note : the definition of sneak attack states that the rogue's attack deals extra damage based on the condition of the target. If the target meets the condition for sneak attack, the attack deals sneak attack damage
I imagine sneak attack and its "condition of the target" being no different than bane or favored enemy, though.
If an elfbane sword was aimed at an elf, and then intercepted by a human bodyguard, the bane would have no effect, even though the initial target was an elf.
If a sneak attack was aimed at a flat-footed (or otherwise susceptible) ally, and then intercepted by a non-flat-footed bodyguard, the sneak attack would have no effect, even though the initial target was vulnerable.
Imagine a squishy mage caught flat-footed by a rogue. The rogue aims at his spleen, a particularly vulnerable area for all mages, when all of the sudden his rapier comes into contact with the shoulder of a hulking barbarian. The barb, being quite aware of the attack, intercepts it. The rogue strikes home, but not nearly as cleanly as he had originally intended.
Likewise, had the bodyguard been positioned with an enemy directly behind him, opposite the rogue, then he would take any sneak attack damage, just as an elfbane sword aimed at a human, and intercepted by an elf, would do.
In my honest opinion, a bodyguard would intercept even if the attack wouldn´t hit, unless the bodyguard feat would give the person foresight when a hit actually happens :P
But then again, rules are rules.
|
|
In my honest opinion, a bodyguard would intercept even if the attack wouldn´t hit, unless the bodyguard feat would give the person foresight when a hit actually happens :P
But then again, rules are rules.
Well, the bodyguard tried to intercept the blow when the enemy missed, but the enemy missed the bodyguard, too.
|
|
Side note : the definition of sneak attack states that the rogue's attack deals extra damage based on the condition of the target. If the target meets the condition for sneak attack, the attack deals sneak attack damageI imagine sneak attack and its "condition of the target" being no different than bane or favored enemy, though.
Actually, the Favored Enemy mentions "creatures" and Bane mentions "foe". Only sneak attack mentions "target". Which is why I believe they can work differently in such a case.
LOLOL! Roberta, you totally made me laugh!
Of course, falling 10,000 ft and hitting the ground for 20d6 makes me laugh too. You can play the rules in a way that makes sense, or you can play them as written.
Until the Powers That Be adjudicate the issue, I suppose every DM will have to interpret the feat as he or she sees fit. I hope I've given folks here food for thought.
It's also RAW that specific rules triumph over general ones.
The immunity to poison is specific, Bodyguard description is general.
|
|
LOLOL! Roberta, you totally made me laugh!
Of course, falling 10,000 ft and hitting the ground for 20d6 makes me laugh too. You can play the rules in a way that makes sense, or you can play them as written.
Until the Powers That Be adjudicate the issue, I suppose every DM will have to interpret the feat as he or she sees fit. I hope I've given folks here food for thought.
Think about this then : what will you tell your player who took Bodyguard when you kill his PC with damage that "makes sense" for you and not for him ?
RAW are important, if only so that GMs tell their players beforehand about their RAI (ie, houserules).
If I don't poison PC's that are immune to poison then that's tantamount to allowing incorporeal things to dive in the way of attacks.
It's a slippery slope in the sense that I am a terrible GM and insist on charging down the not-actually-slippery slope ad absurdum.
|
|
I would be very surprised to discover that RAI isn't that the attack is resolved as if it had simply hit the bodyguard. I could see some exceptions being out there, especially with sneak attack. I would let the sneak attack get off, half because most bodyguard characters have one or two methods to negate sneak attacks anyway, so it's not a really big deal, and in part because I like the cinematic awesome of shoving aside an ally and taking the attack meant for them right in the (insert favorite vital organ here).
|
|
I would be very surprised to discover that RAI isn't that the attack is resolved as if it had simply hit the bodyguard.
That is exactly what the feat does. The bodyguard intercepts the attack and gets hit. What I believe remains the only issue is whether or not any sneak attack damage would also apply, given that the bodyguard is either not flanked or not flat-footed.
|
|
Favored Enemy mentions "creatures" and Bane mentions "foe". Only sneak attack mentions "target". Which is why I believe they can work differently in such a case.What is the significance of the distinction between those three terms?
IMO, the bodyguard is not the target of the attack. However, in the end, he is indeed the creature (or foe) hit by the attack.
Hence my interpretations above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking over this old thread, I see at the top of the page it says, "Answered in the FAQ" ... but when I search the Advanced Player's Guide FAQ, I cannot find anything on the topic. Or in any other FAQ.
Anyone know where this topic has been resolved by a FAQ entry?
Yesssss, a link to the FAQ would be much appreciated.
Could not find it anywhere.