|
| 42 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I have Bodyguard and Paired Opportunists, and I use Bodyguard to use an Attack of Opportunity to aid an ally, if my ally also has Paired Opportunists, would my ally get an Attack of Opportunity against the attacker (assuming all positioning prereqs are met)?
Bodyguard (Combat)
Your swift strikes ward off enemies attacking nearby allies.Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes.
Benefit: When an adjacent ally is attacked, you may use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally's AC. You may not use the aid another action to improve your ally's attack roll with this attack.
Normal: Aid another is a standard action.
Paired Opportunists (Combat, Teamwork)
You know how to make an enemy pay for lax defenses.Benefit: 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.
I bolded the contended parts.
p.s. I've seen this discussion in two separate threads within the last week.
Yes. The ally would gain the AC bonus from Aid Another, and would get an attack of opportunity at a +4 bonus.
claudekennilol and I have been arguing about this on the 2 threads below.
Broken Wing Gambit + In Harm's Way
Guide to Attacks of Opportunity
I have cast my vote in favor for this as a proposed FAQ.
But...but....provoke just means to cause or initiate something. I don't think anyone would argue that Bodyguard causes an AoO.
The feat would do nothing if that was the case. You don't even need to talk about Paired Opportunists at all.
Actually that was my reaction to this quote:
No it doesn't. "Provokes" is a very specific term which bodyguard doesn't have. Bodyguard doesn't work with Paired Opportunists.
|
The issue is that Bodyguard is giving you a way to use your Attacks of Opportunity on actions that don't normally trigger the use of AoOs. In this case, you're giving up options to attack targets later in the round in order to help one of your allies avoid an attack. Obviously, attacking someone with a weapon doesn't normally provoke an AoO, and Bodyguard is very careful to suggest that it doesn't. It still counts against your limit of 1+Dex modifier AoOs per round, though.
The question really should be stated as "does the use of attacks of opportunity granted by the Bodyguard feat count as 'provoked' attacks of opportunity, like casting in melee combat or moving through a threatened area?" That would solve the underlying question, as everything else uses standard game terminology that I believe we all agree upon.
|
|
Yes. The ally would gain the AC bonus from Aid Another, and would get an attack of opportunity at a +4 bonus.Did you even read the question? I do realize that it was a yes or no question so the yes may be in response to the actual question. The bolded part of your response makes me think you completely glazed over the question as it doesn't have anything to do with what should be in an answer to the question that was asked.
The issue is that Bodyguard is giving you a way to use your Attacks of Opportunity on actions that don't normally trigger the use of AoOs. In this case, you're giving up options to attack targets later in the round in order to help one of your allies avoid an attack. Obviously, attacking someone with a weapon doesn't normally provoke an AoO, and Bodyguard is very careful to suggest that it doesn't. It still counts against your limit of 1+Dex modifier AoOs per round, though.
The question really should be stated as "does the use of attacks of opportunity granted by the Bodyguard feat count as 'provoked' attacks of opportunity, like casting in melee combat or moving through a threatened area?" That would solve the underlying question, as everything else uses standard game terminology that I believe we all agree upon.
There are other examples of using up Attacks of Opportunity without the word provoke being used. If I asked that question, then the answer would be too specific. But I believe an answer to this question would still cover other cases. (see Seize the Moment)
So let's go through this step by step.
1: Enemy attacks Ally.
2: Provokes AoO
3: Bodyguard uses the AoO as aid Another
4: Paired Opportunists is triggered by #2 and gains AoO and bonus.
This only works if #2 occurs. To me the only question is whether the Bodyguard feat generates its own AoO or if it requires the AoO to come from some other mechanic or feat.
If Bodyguard DOES NOT create an AoO then "provoking" the AoO would come from a different mechanic or source. But this doesn't seem to be the intent at all. It seems the Bodyguard feat generates or "provokes" its own AoO without requiring a second source.
Yes. The ally would gain the AC bonus from Aid Another, and would get an attack of opportunity at a +4 bonus.Did you even read the question? I do realize that it was a yes or no question so the yes may be in response to the actual question. The bolded part of your response makes me think you completely glazed over the question as it doesn't have anything to do with what should be in an answer to the question that was asked.There are other examples of using up Attacks of Opportunity without the word provoke being used. If I asked that question, then the answer would be too specific. But I believe an answer to this question would still cover other cases. (see Seize the Moment)The issue is that Bodyguard is giving you a way to use your Attacks of Opportunity on actions that don't normally trigger the use of AoOs. In this case, you're giving up options to attack targets later in the round in order to help one of your allies avoid an attack. Obviously, attacking someone with a weapon doesn't normally provoke an AoO, and Bodyguard is very careful to suggest that it doesn't. It still counts against your limit of 1+Dex modifier AoOs per round, though.
The question really should be stated as "does the use of attacks of opportunity granted by the Bodyguard feat count as 'provoked' attacks of opportunity, like casting in melee combat or moving through a threatened area?" That would solve the underlying question, as everything else uses standard game terminology that I believe we all agree upon.
This is something I see a lot on these forums that really bugs me. Game makers like to consistently use the same wording to avoid confusion. But using the wording over and over doesn't magically turn it into a "game term".
Game Terms are terminology specific to a game that different from its normal definition. But provoke isn't a game term, its just being used as its normal English definition. Just because the wording is consistent doesn't mean it magically gained some alternate meaning.
If Body Guards causes an Attack of Opportunity effect, then it is being provoked. Because that's what provoke means...
You don't have to literally use the word provoke for the wording to have the same meaning.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
1: Enemy attacks ally.
2: Doesn't Provoke.
3: Bodyguard allows the use of an attack of opportunity to aid for AC.
4: Paired Opportunist does nothing.
I'm pretty sure the 'you may use an attack of opportunity' from Bodyguard refers to the 'pool' of attacks of opportunity available, i.e. 1 + bonus from combat reflexes and other sources. Bodyguard itself doesn't cause the enemy to provoke, but it allows an alternate use of that pool of resources.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo sadly lacks technical writers which means (1) terms are not always used consistently and (2) some terms are used to mean specific things without actually defining the specific things they mean.
It sucks.
According to this post by the author, Bodyguard is only intended to use the AoO resource (hence the wording "use an AoO") rather than abide by all the rules involving AoO (which would presumably be "make an AoO"):
My intention with tying it to the AoO mechanic was simply to make it an ability you could use more than once per round, rather than wanting to tie it specifically to all the implied mechanics of AoOs. I had thought about just making it an immediate action, but that limits it to once per round and takes your im/swift action. I figured that was an appropriate mechanic for In Harm's Way, but the defensive bonus of AA was modest enough that I thought it entirely fair to not limit it that way.
This is not definitive but I think when you combine this statement with the fact that using Bodyguard to give a friend a free AoO at +4 whenever someone attacks them is clearly overpowered I think it's safe to rule "No" on this one.
No, it isn't. It specifically says you get an attack of opportunity, and since the only way you get an attack of opportunity is by being provoked, attacking the ally of someone who has the Bodyguard Feat Provokes an Attack of Opportunity.
It doesn't say you get one. It says you can use one. Using an attack of opportunity is something entirely different from getting one.
In particular, you will note that when using the bodyguard feat, you actually don't get to attack anyone.
|
|
No, it isn't. It specifically says you get an attack of opportunity, and since the only way you get an attack of opportunity is by being provoked, attacking the ally of someone who has the Bodyguard Feat Provokes an Attack of Opportunity.
Or unless you're allowed to use one like the special text provided by Bodyguard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
provoke an AoO, and Bodyguard is very careful to suggest that it doesn't.No, it isn't. It specifically says you get an attack of opportunity, and since the only way you get an attack of opportunity is by being provoked, attacking the ally of someone who has the Bodyguard Feat Provokes an Attack of Opportunity.
Nope. Your list is a great example of the two ways that powers utilize AoO mechanics.
Bodyguard AND Snake Fang specifically avoid the term "provoke" when referencing the AoO. They use the term "use".
Crane Reposte/Greater Trip/Overrun/Bull Rush/etc do use the term "provoke" when referencing the AoO.
I am going to assume that since we are talking about a rule based system that there is indeed a mechanical difference between these two terms.
|
|
Actually, Snake Fang doesn't say "use an AoO," it says "make an UAS as an attack of opportunity."
Crane Riposte uses both "provoke an Aoo" (when fighting defensively) and "make an AoO" (when using total defense).
It's not clear whether there is a general difference between "use an AoO," "make an AoO" and "provokes an AoO." There are certainly situations in which "make" and "provokes" appear to be interchangeable (such as the Vicious Stomp/Greater Trip FAQ from the Blog, which uses "take an AoO" when both feats use "provoke").
The developer statement on Bodyguard however indicates that in that specific case the use of "use an AoO" was intentionally used to distance the feat from the full AoO mechanic.
The issue is that Bodyguard is giving you a way to use your Attacks of Opportunity on actions that don't normally trigger the use of AoOs.That's not much of an issue. Lots of Feats do that. Crane Riposte, Snake Fang, Greater Trip, Greater Overrun, Greater Bull Rush, and many others.
These feats also have more limitations on when they may be used.
Crane Riposte works once per round.
Snake Fang requires the opponent to miss you, not just attack you.
Greater Trip is limited by the fact that you need to successfully trip someone to get/grant the AoO (and some opponents can be difficult or impossible to trip). Greater Overrun and Greater Bull Rush are similarly dependent on combat maneuvers.
The developer statement on Bodyguard however indicates that in that specific case the use of "use an AoO" was intentionally used to distance the feat from the full AoO mechanic.The developer statement?
From the guy who wrote the feat.
My intention with tying it to the AoO mechanic was simply to make it an ability you could use more than once per round, rather than wanting to tie it specifically to all the implied mechanics of AoOs. I had thought about just making it an immediate action, but that limits it to once per round and takes your im/swift action. I figured that was an appropriate mechanic for In Harm's Way, but the defensive bonus of AA was modest enough that I thought it entirely fair to not limit it that way.
Yeah...Jason Nelson chimed in about bodyguard a few years ago. See Weirdo's post above.
The comment was regarding whether or not bodyguard could work against ranged attacks, however it also gives a lot of insight into why it was tied to AoO mechanics.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So does Parry trigger Paired Opportunists?
Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack. The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity; for each size category the attacking creature is larger than the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler takes a –2 penalty on this roll. If her result is greater than the attacking creature's result, the creature's attack automatically misses. The swashbuckler must declare the use of this ability after the creature's attack is announced, but before its attack roll is made. Upon performing a successful parry and if she has at least 1 panache point, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action make an attack against the creature whose attack she parried, provided that creature is within her reach.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bodyguard does not mean the enemy provokes an attack of opportunity.
"When an adjacent ally is attacked, you may use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s AC. You may not use the aid another action to improve your ally’s attack roll with this attack."
You only have so many attacks of opportunity in a round. Instead of using one of them, you may give an ally +ac for an attack. There is no provoking form the enemy going on. You just have an alternative way of using your AoOs now.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
TL:DR: By demanding a strict, "originalist" application of the AoO rules just so that you can take advantage of a rare combination, you're going to end up crippling the Bodyguard feat. House rule it however you want, but please don't ruin it for the rest of us.
===
First, you're arguing from an invalid premise. "If the enemy provokes, then you may take an AoO" is not the same statement as "You may take an AoO only when the enemy provokes and under no other circumstances" (either in grammar or in symbolic logic--take your pick).
Second, even assuming that your premise is valid, I think you'll quickly find more disadvantages than benefits by taking the stance that "Bodyguard is an actual AoO and follows all the AoO rules in the Core Rulebook:
1) There are a specific list of actions in the Core Rulebook that provoke an AoO. Bodyguard does not contain any text that alters that list (e.g., "attacking your ally provokes an attack of opportunity"), so you can only use Bodyguard if the enemy somehow also provokes an AoO at the same time that enemy attacks your ally. (Good luck with that.)
2) As defined in the Core Rulebook, AoOs can only be taken when you threaten the enemy in melee. Therefore, you can only use Bodyguard when you are both threatening the enemy and adjacent to your ally. This means you can never use Bodyguard against an enemy with reach or against a ranged attack. (This, by the way, was how it was interpreted for a while, and Bodyguard was virtually useless.)
3) As defined in the Core Rulebook, an AoO must attack the enemy. The Aid Another action usually only requires a DC 10. If Bodyguard follows the AoO rules from the Core Rulebook, you must attack the enemy's AC; if you miss, your ally doesn't get the boost to AC. (This means that Bodyguard becomes less useful against tougher enemies, which is when you need it most.)
4) As defined in the Core Rulebook, an AoO is not a standard action. Aid Another is a standard action. If Bodyguard is an AoO and follows all of the AoO rules in the Core Rulebook, you can't actually use it at all.
Third, as new rules come out, they can alter, expand, and even invalidate old rules without explicitly referencing the original rules. So if you really believe that any given rule can't function unless it explicitly reference all previous rules that it alters, then you need to just stick with the Core Rulebook. Seriously: you'll save yourself a lot of grief in the long run.
Fourth, I suggest that Bodyguard is a much better feat if you read it as a extension of the Aid Another rules and ignore the AoO rules outside of "how to count your AoOs per round). As a variant of the Aid Another rules, Bodyguard specifically lets you use Aid Another multiple times per round by expending an AoO (without actually taking an attack). With the current interpretation of Bodyguard (as referenced by developers on the forums), you can use Bodyguard against ranged attacks and against opponents with reach.
Sure, with the Aid Another interpretation, you can't use it with Paired Opportunists, but that's OK. You don't need the +4 on the Bodyguard AoO, because you only have to hit an AC of 10, and your partner won't always be able to take an AoO anyway (reach, ranged attacks, positioning, etc.).
It's a much more useful feat overall--and I say this as someone who has two different Bodyguard characters (three, if you count my cavalier's mount) with the Tactician ability. My Holy Tactician Paladin can pass out three teamwork feats simultaneously and learn new teamwork feats as a move action, so I'm very invested in making the most out of teamwork feats.
My advice: skip Paired Opportunists and go with Harrying Partners so that your Aid Another bonus from Bodyguard lasts the whole round. That way, you can use Bodyguard an any ally who gets attacked instead of wasting all 3 of your AoOs guarding one ally against a single enemy's full attack. It's a much more powerful combination, trust me.
And please, please don't bully the developers or other people on the forums into agreeing with you. That rarely ends well.
The opponent in question isn't even attacked by this attack of opportunity. He's just being interfered with, and an attack roll has to be made against an AC of 10. There's no implication at all that this is an actual attack against the opponent, it's just a roll that needs to meet a certain AC. You're not attacking, you're just getting in the way and thereby hindering the opponent.
"If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent's next attack (your choice)"
How can an opponent be considered to be provoking an attack of opportunity if there's never even an opportunity to attack that opponent?
|
|
The developer statement on Bodyguard however indicates that in that specific case the use of "use an AoO" was intentionally used to distance the feat from the full AoO mechanic.The developer statement?
Yes, the statement I described and linked to in my first post.
So? Bodyguard also has severe limitations on when they may be used, more severe than Snake Fang's, in my opinion.
Bodyguard can only be used when your ally is attacked. And further, Bodyguard's AoO is limited to the Aid Another action.
And those limitations require defensive use. Paired Opportunist AS you describe it allows the ally to make an offensive AoO in response to Bodyguard, side-stepping the "aid another only" requirement. The only requirements still in play are Paired Opportunist's positioning (same for both), Snake Fang's "miss you," and Bodyguard's "attacks ally" - and unless it's significantly more likely that an opponent will attack you than your ally, the "miss" requirement makes Bodyguard more likely to go off. (Note: I've played two characters with Bodyguard and one with Snake Fang and did indeed use Bodyguard more often.)
Further, Snake Fang (especially with Paired Opportunist) punishes an opponent for missing you - meaning if the opponent is likely to miss you they will soon stop attacking you in favour of a squishier target. On the other hand, Bodyguard+Paired Opportunist punishes the opponent for attacking your allies - which for many characters that would use this combo is exactly what they want! It would be very, very easy for a Honour Guard to jack up their own AC and then use these feats to demolish opponents who try to go around the tank. (Now, maybe PF could use a better tanking mechanic but I don't think the answer is to require this very specific feat combo.)
What matters is what Mr. Nelson did and didn't write, what he MEANT to write is irrelevant. I own a lot of Pathfinder rulebooks, and nowhere have I been able to find a single rule that was intended. Every rule was written.
The problem with this is that language does not exist in absence of intent or interpretation - when we hear or read language we will actually make very rapid predictions about where a sentence is going or what it means even in the middle of that sentence. (Citation) These predictions involve guessing the speaker/writer's intent. Good technical writing does not make interpretation unnecessary - rather it ensures that the text is more likely to be interpreted in the way the writer intended.
What the Pathfinder Core Rulebook did write was that you only get to use an Attack of Opportunity is when someone provokes one.
What Mr. Nelson did not write is that Bodyguard's way of allowing use of attacks of opportunity is different from provoking one.
And if Mr. Nelson doesn't like it, he can have the Design Team change the rules.
Because right now, the rules are clear.
As Gwen Smith pointed out, the rules certainly do not include a clear statement that you only get to use an AoO when someone provokes them - any more than the sentence "Happy Harry gives you free cake on your birthday" clearly prevents Happy Harry from giving you free cake on other occasions.
Bodyguard is currently written in an unclear manner that, thanks to an absence of solid terminology relating to AoO use, can be reasonably interpreted in multiple ways. What is necessary now is not changing the rule, but writing it in a less unclear manner. And possibly standardizing AoO terminology so we can avoid future arguments over whether use = make = provoke.
Somebody PM Mr. Nelson that I am defying and insulting his artistic vision, and get him to get the Design Team to fix his mistake. Then I will acknowledge the rules have changed so that my interpretation only applies to the old rules and not the new rules. And claude's applies to the new rules if not the old.
Save poor Mr. Nelson's vision from my rough-shod boots and cast your request for the FAQ on the top of this thread!
I'm going to assume that this is meant to be a joke, but it's also unnecessarily confrontational. Criticism can stay constructive.
No, it isn't. It specifically says you get an attack of opportunity, and since the only way you get an attack of opportunity is by being provoked, attacking the ally of someone who has the Bodyguard Feat Provokes an Attack of Opportunity.
Technically this is incorrect. Check out the fortuitous weapon enchantment.
There is no provocation, so Paired Opportunist doesn't trigger.
There needs to be no rule anywhere other than in the Bodyguard feat that you can use an Attack of Opportunity without one being provoked. The Bodyguard feat tells you that you can, and dictates when you can. It does everything a feat needs to do to add new options. There's only a lack of clarity if you obsessively insist there is one.
A great many feats add options that go against or augment basic rules. There's nothing special or more complicated about this one.
Does it say you can use an attack of opportunity? Yes.
Does it say one is provoked? No.
Case closed.
|
|
Scott, I understand that unclear rules can be frustrating in PFS but that does not mean that all rules are clear.
The language surrounding AoO is inconsistent and not formally defined. The English terms "make an attack" and "provoke an attack" have very different meanings - you can make an unprovoked attack. While they appear to be used interchangeably in the context of AoO that does not guarantee that they actually are interchangeable.
Further, Bodyguard's use of the phrase "use an AoO" sets it apart from all other "AoO trigger" feats. "Make an AoO" could reasonably be just a concise way to say "the opponent provokes an AoO from you," but there's no reason to say "use" instead of "make" unless it has a distinct mechanical meaning.
What are you doing to protect everyone's fun? Have you Flagged this thread for an FAQ? Have you liked Claude's post?
I have flagged it for FAQ, though I'm not sure what "liking" it will achieve. Discussion will hopefully get this thread a little more attention and that's the only reason I'm still here.
you may… attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s AC.And those limitations require defensive use…. side-stepping the "aid another only" requirement.I am not side-stepping the “aid-another only” requirement. Aid Another used this way is an attack. It is described in the Core Rulebook under the heading Special Attacks. It's a Special Attack, but an attack nonetheless.
It's an attack that results in adding to your ally's AC rather than harming the enemy. That makes it a defensive use. Adding a normal, damaging AoO from Paired Opportunist makes it an offensive use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prove it. Prove that Bodyguard is more than just another AoO trigger. Prove that Bodyguard says that you are using an attack of opportunity but not making an attack of opportunity.
I have brought the proof.
You haven't.
I win. You lose.
Some abilities are not tied to your race, class, or skill—things like particularly quick reflexes that allow you to react to danger more swiftly, the ability to craft magic items, the training to deliver powerful strikes with melee weapons, or the knack for deflecting arrows fired at you. These abilities are represented as feats. While some feats are more useful to certain types of characters than others, and many of them have special prerequisites that must be met before they are selected, as a general rule feats represent abilities outside of the normal scope of your character's race and class. Many of them alter or enhance class abilities or soften class restrictions, while others might apply bonuses to your statistics or grant you the ability to take actions otherwise prohibited to you. By selecting feats, you can customize and adapt your character to be uniquely yours.
The feat in question grants you the ability to use an attack of opportunity without one being provoked. Evidence? The feat says so itself.
Does it tell you that an AoO is being provoked? No.
Does it let you use an AoO? Yes.
Do we need to assume that the feat does things or requires things that it doesn't explicitly state? No, it's a feat and feats let you do things that are otherwise prohibited, so we can ignore any of the basic rules that the feat sidesteps.
So once more, let me get this straight, what does it let you do? Use an AoO in a way otherwise prohibited to you, specifically, it lets you use one without one being provoked.
That's awesome! Yep, that's feats for you.
Leaning towards no because the AOO was not provoked.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't tell people to review the rules. Make a case, not a sideways implication that they don't know the rules.
|
|
I don't think it's unclear that "provoke" is just a Core Rulebook term that means {Do something that gives opponents a chance to make an attack of opportunity}
"Provoke AoO" is fairly clear by itself. The issue is "make AoO" and "use AoO" as I will discuss below.
The English terms "make an attack" and "provoke an attack" have very different meanings - you can make an unprovoked attack. While they appear to be used interchangeably in the context of AoO that does not guarantee that they actually are interchangeable.Your quote doesn't seem to make a lot of sense verbatim: a little truistic. I think you meant " 'allow you to make an attack of opportunity' and 'provoke an attack of opportunity' have very different meanings." If that is not the case, please forgive me. I HATE it when people re-word what I wrote to change its meaning and then attribute their words to me. Doing that to someone else is the last thing I'd do.
Yes, I meant "make an AoO against X" and "X provokes an AoO." Thanks for checking. The relevant point here is that it is theoretically possible for you to make an attack of opportunity against someone without them doing anything that would provoke that attack. Oddly enough Greater Trip is a good example in that the opponent doesn't take any action - rather the trigger is "being tripped" - however it does use the term "provoke." This leads me to personally believe that those two terms are interchangeable. Unfortunately using common English rather than well-defined game terms leaves room for doubt. And using an AoO is another issue altogether as we see...
If that is what you meant, then I disagree with you in most cases. As I said before, the Core Rulebook pretty much uses "Provoke and Attack of Opportunity" to describe all actions that leave you open to opponents making Attacks of Opportunity against you. I certainly don't think it is theoretically impossible for those 2 things to be different. Indeed, claudekennilol came up with the example of the Swashbuckler Ability. But Claude's example barely squeaked by with a poorly worded exception, but one which only means that it is an exception, an example of an Attack of Opportunity happening and brought about by something that was not technically "provoking."
The fact that there is that one exception means that the rules allow for exceptions. Parry allows you to use an AoO without an AoO being provoked, therefore it is possible to use an AoO without an AoO being provoked.
But Bodyguard doesn't have that. "Uses an Attack of Opportunity" still means "makes an Attack of Opportunity" unless someone official says differently, because the description of Bodyguard doesn't say that. I mean, come on: how do you "use an attack of opportunity" without "making an attack attack of opportunity?"
The same way you can use a spell slot without casting a spell. Or "A witch can use a scroll to teach her familiar a new spell" without casting the spell from the scroll. Or, from the variant wordcasting rules in Ultimate Magic, "If a wordcaster is attempting to counter the spell of a normal spellcaster, she must make a Spellcraft skill check to identify the school of the spell being cast. She can then counter that spell using any wordspell" but does not cast that spell.
"To use" can mean to employ something for its normal purpose, or it can mean to expend a resource. You have to figure out which meaning is valid through context, which brings me to...
But since it is, what people are arguing against me are saying is that Bodyguard lets you use an attack of opportunity to make an attack in a way that is somehow different from making an attack of opportunity but still counts against your total allotment of attacks of opportunity, and this attack is triggered by a specific event that is somehow not "provoking" even though the Core Rulebook says it is? And the reason why people accept this is because the wording of the text is unclear? This is outrageous!
But it does seem that the author intended just that. But he has never officially said that. A slightly unusual wording does not make Bodyguard different from other AoO trigger feats. You can't presume an exceptions to the rules. Exceptions to the rules must be officially stated somehow. Mr. Nelson just hasn't done that.
Bodyguard is very clearly different from the other "AoO trigger" feats in that it doesn't allow you to attempt to damage your opponent. Because of that clear difference, people do believe that the feat also uses AoO merely as a resource pool.
This is a customer service issue. This is an issue with the quality control of the Pathfinder product. And if people are actually trying to force players to stop doing what they want, when no rules are being broken, then this is sort of like a civil rights issue. Not really, because it's just a game. But still, just because somebody's way of playing is unpopular, that doesn't make it illegal, and as long as it isn't, they should be allowed to play their way.
In a home game the group gets to play however they want (with GM as final arbiter). If you're playing PFS you have to accept that you can't always play your way, and an FAQ like this is just as likely to have your preferred reading shot down as confirmed.
The feat in question grants you the ability to use an attack of opportunity without one being provoked. Evidence? The feat says so itself.Show me.
Benefit: When an adjacent ally is attacked, you may use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally's AC. You may not use the aid another action to improve your ally's attack roll with this attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm looking at it from a different angle. The provoking action from bodyguard is "an ally being attacked", so the one provoking is your own ally and not the enemy. In facts, is your ally that must be adjacent, and not the enemy. To furter support this statement, aid another is used as an attack on your ally and not on your enemy.
So paired opportunist could work, but said AOO should be resolved against the provoker of said attack, namely your own ally.