|
Alright, since we have finally come to agreement that declaring all AOO to be provoked is false, we can now move to our final affirmation. Since Bodyguard does not call any provocation, even if it let you make an AOO, there is no base by RAW to assume provocation. Thus, no provocation, no Paired Opportunist.
Quod Est Demonstrandum
Finally? That's what I said weeks ago and Scott still insists otherwise.
Alright, since we have finally come to agreement that declaring all AOO to be provoked is false, we can now move to our final affirmation. Since Bodyguard does not call any provocation, even if it let you make an AOO, there is no base by RAW to assume provocation. Thus, no provocation, no Paired Opportunist
I would add that it goes back to DMs call, since the idea that an AoO was provoked isn't completely unfounded or even a bad conclusion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am only as stubborn as my facts, sir.Finally? That's what I said weeks ago and Scott still insists otherwise.Alright, since we have finally come to agreement that declaring all AOO to be provoked is false, we can now move to our final affirmation. Since Bodyguard does not call any provocation, even if it let you make an AOO, there is no base by RAW to assume provocation. Thus, no provocation, no Paired Opportunist.
Quod Est Demonstrandum
You're more than entitled to your interpretations. You're also more than than entitled to try and convince people you're correct. But claiming your interpretations as fact is just downright rude to those that disagree with you.
Sure is pedantic in here.
Lots of writing and saying the same thing over and over again isn't going to change the fact that your premise is based on fallacious reasoning.
Give up and wait for clarification from a developer. The current debate is over.
Alright, since we have finally come to agreement that declaring all AOO to be provoked is false, we can now move to our final affirmation. Since Bodyguard does not call any provocation, even if it let you make an AOO, there is no base by RAW to assume provocation. Thus, no provocation, no Paired OpportunistI would add that it goes back to DMs call, since the idea that an AoO was provoked isn't completely unfounded or even a bad conclusion.What makes it a bad conclusion is that it presumes an exception to the Core Rulebook. Bodyguard does not state such an exception to the Core Rulebook. It doesn't even imply one.
Scott, I think you need to step back for a moment and take time to read what is actually being written. BNW was actually putting in a point for your view here - not against it.
As for your referencing the CRB frequently, that is fine in general principle. The issue you are going to have here is that you are trying to insist the CRB covers every nuance of the AoO rules to include rules that had not yet been written when the CRB rules were printed. Your 'facts' have merit, but I don't believe (like quite a few people in this thread have also espoused) they are so solid as you believe they are. It is A reading of RAW. It is not the only possible conclusion to derive from the text we have.
Personally, I could see a ruling for this coming down on either side, though I expect it will come down that BG is not a provoked AoO, in line with the original authors intent.
|
Scott, can you distill your argument into formal steps?
I think the following has been the RAW basis for your argument:
Bodyguard: If enemy attacks, then I can expend AoO to Aid Another. and;
Paired Opportunist: If enemy provokes from me, then ally can use AoO to attack. and;
CRB: If an enemy provokes, then I can use an AoO to attack.
Something like:
Step 1: Aid Another is listed under Special Attacks, therefore it is an Attack. (even though it is a standard action, not an attack action normally)
Step 2: Aid Another is an Attack, and Bodyguard expends an AoO, therefore using Bodyguard to Aid Another is an AoO.
Step 3: Using Bodyguard to Aid Another is an AoO, therefore the triggering enemy provoked an AoO. ( I think this is equivocating the common term provoke with the rules term provoke on top of the Affirming the Consequent fallacy. )
Step 4: The enemy provoked an AoO from me, therefore Paired Opportunist triggers.
If you can lay it out better or more clearly, please do. I see a basis for your interpretation, but I am not convinced beyond the inherent bias toward conservatism I reserve for unintended interactions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Referencing specific pages from the core rulebook and saying "this agrees with me" is a good argument.
Hand waving at the entire core rulebook and saying "this says i'm right!" is not an argument.
I didn't read the entire thread, but I will post my input here.
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.
I'll say no, and here's why:
Bodyguard works off of a proxy. The proxy is that an ally that is adjacent to you is attacked (it don't really matter if it's range or melee). When that adjacent ally is attacked, you use an Attack of Opportunity to use Aid Another. This doesn't mean you make an Attack of Opportunity, involving an attack roll to deal hit point damage to the target of the provocation, merely that you spend one to perform a separate activity that you normally could not do with spending an Attack of Opportunity.
So, because you're spending an Attack of Opportunity to use Aid Another, your ally shouldn't get an Attack of Opportunity because you aren't making one yourself.
Additionally, the Attack of Opportunity being expended for Bodyguard is not a provocation, it's a feat's ability, not from the provocation of an enemy. Although you can argue that the provocation for Bodyguard is fundamentally the same paradigm as typical Attacks of Opportunity, I can guarantee you it's not RAI for, say, a melee and reach character with these feats to be able to essentially full-attack at their highest BAB against Large or larger foes outside their turn.
The only plausible saving grace is this section here:
(even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity)
And that's dubious to say the least, considering this is more likely to mean that you could make these Attacks of Opportunity with, say, an Unarmed Strike, when you aren't normally able to make an Attack of Opportunity unless you have the Improved Unarmed Strike or similar ability. Acrobatics and similar would also apply to such fallacies, if, say one PC has a high CMD, another PC has a low CMD, and the creature was able to Acrobatics from the low CMD, but not the high CMD, resulting in a provocation from both PCs due to the feat.
I'll FAQ, if only just to get this answered proper, but as far as I'm concerned, the PDT will probably give you the same answer I just gave. (Probably. You never know, though, as they keep constantly swinging the nerfbat around and around.)
|
|
Classic Straw man fallacy vs BNW and for the record I object as well.
Please stop ascribing motives to others.
You have an interpretation that fundamentally changes the game to the point bodyguard and paired opportunist would be the back bone of nearly every melee character and no one would enjoy a game where melee combatants flurry off a full round of individually interupting AOOs up to their DEX mod +1 in retaliation for an attack which didn't provoke. (When a bodyguard PO duo meets another group with matching feats).... No one else at the table gets to do anything while these 4 characters each make 3-5 AOOs each vs each other all as singular interupts.
This is not a game people would like to play.
No one is scared of bodyguard being weaker in your interpretation; they are worried about the unintended consequences of this FAQ. If your interpretation is considered valid by the Dev team, they are far more likely to close it than allow it, and nerfing BG is a potential outcome to ensure it.
Regardless of your motives to allow a different option you are more likely to limit far more of them.
PFS GMs wielding capricious adjudicatory power and unilaterally abrogating consumer rights?... LOL. In my group we go out of our way to thank the GM, even if things didn't go smoothly, even if a bad call were made, even if I couldn't play the character I wanted due to a rule interpretation wasn't made in my favor. It's a game, and the GM is forsaking playing so everyone else can enjoy it. Cut them some slack especially on corner cases.
I wasn't throwing the whole book at you and telling you you haven't read it.
I was referencing a specific section of the Core Rulebooks. Granted, it is the whole section , but in this case, nearly the whole section was necessary to make my point,
...
Throwing the entire section at me has the exact same problem(see point 2 below)
You are really coming across as presuming a lot of negativity on my character
Its not your character I'm objecting to its your arguments. Pointing out flaws in your arguments is not attacking you, casting aspersions on your character or assuming negativity.
First, this is at least the second time you've used A--->B to be B---> A. That's an outright error in logic that you keep making. Provoking actions can let you spend an aoo to thwack them does not mean that all instances of spending AoOs constitute provocation. Its hard for an argument to be worse than to be a text book logical fallacy.
Second, you state, flat out, that your interpretation of text is raw. This is simply not the case. You deny anyone elses interpretation ANY validity if it disagrees with you. This is why its incredibly important to show specific sentences and get the exact words, not what you think their meaning is.
Third, you deny any and all possibility of ambiguity. The text must be perfectly clear and that one true meaning overrides any and all other considerations including game balance, power, arguments to the contrary, and even (and this is the kicker) the author saying "this is how I meant those words". What you're saying is that the words meaning is so explicit that the guy who wrote them is wrong about what they mean. Thats a VERY tall order to argue and you are not there.
Fourth if everyone else is reading a rule the other way then everyone else is wrong. This is possible, but at least give everyone else ... if not agreement, at least some possibility that they have a legitimate interpretation: especially with the author of the feat weighing in.
that is just not appropriate and not appreciated.
Nothing I've said here goes into WHY you're doing that.
You can hate me, someone you've never met and will probably never meet, for pointing out some problematic methods you use to argue rules, or you can keep butting heads with people you do actually play with and sour your relationship.
if i may, i had an idea that i think will not only set aside this argument, but also shed light into the dev's original thought when he made this feat AND explain why he used a specific game mechanic as he did(i'm not saying exactly what this is to keep it as a suprise for the finish ;)
let me start with saying that i had gone through most of the posts here(ignoring some non related like the one talking about getting +4 to the ac. which is wrong, it goes to the aid another check). and i had the following argument running in my head :
me - well, the idea that every aoo NEED to have been provoked is not right, what about having an ally attacked by a trap? it still is an attack but how does a trap provoke?
self - why not? hell, if me and my bff (with same team feat) stand near it and he has an admant weapon he can attack it and maybe wreck it before the attack happen.
me- that is absurd, inanimate objects can't let their guard down and provoke.
self- if they can attack, why can't they provoke?
me- hmm..
and now this sparks the idea that what really happend here was that the attack IS the one that provoked the aoo(no, read right, the ATTACK not the attackER).
look at it this way. the dev was probably watching his fev anime\action movie\whatnot and there on the screen a guy deflect an attack that should hit his friend.and he goes -wow i wish we had something like that in pathfinder. (dev was quoted saying he was intending this would work with ranged attack. and that is a reacquiring thing in a lot of anime).
so he sits down to work. obviously this ability should work out of turn,as some1 else is attacking now, and the faster you are the more attacks you can deflect = in comes combat reflexes as requirement and source for number of times per round.(also limit you to not multi aoo AND multi guard in same round, there should be a limit on how FAST you ARE).
next he sits down to write the mechanic that will help attack the incoming attack..and then it hits him. THERE IS ALREADY SUCH A MECHANIC IN PATHFINDER, an attack to help some1 else against being attack? why it's part of the aid another action. the only difference is it is a standard action. all he has to do is make a feat that let you use an aoo when you do it. which is also why you do not need to roll against the attacker ac. you are not attacking him ,you are attacking his attack.
this would make it work not only on close by attackers that attack and are close enough to provoke normal aoo. but to ranged attacks and even to traps attack rolls(and clearly the feat make no difference between them all ).
BUT making this a normal aoo (and not a simple aid an other that "uses" an aoo from your round's total). also make it so you can not deflect an attack you can not see. which would make it more real-like and thematic( as in total concealment rules : "You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies."
to finish, yes you were provoked, not by the attacker, but by his attack.
so if you and your team body are both close to said provoker- the attack that hits your ally is in his square, (and both have the ability to attack an attack as an aoo = bodyguard feat) you both can use bodyguard to aid the target. you do not however get an aoo on the attacker since it is not him that provoked the aoo (as said before it would be a strange day when an attack would make you less focus on ...attacking).
also note, since the same action can only provoke one aoo you and your body don't give each other a 2nd aoo. (same as moving through 3 threaten areas in one move only provoke once of each atacker)
First, this is at least the second time you've used A--->B to be B---> A. That's an outright error in logic that you keep making.
To expand upon this, Scott, here's what we see:
A--->B
Here's what you see:
A<--->B
The former is not the same as the latter, because it's not a two-way street. It's a one-way. The former only provides progression from A to B, and not from B to A. The latter does provide that reverse progression.
That being said, if effects that expend Attacks of Opportunity are the same as taking Attacks of Opportunity themselves, it creates highly unintended consequences, especially in regards to this feat.
For example, let's tack on the Outflank and Gang Up feats. Now, let's say Large Creature A attempts to attack Player C. Well, lucky for Player C, who has Player A, B, and D with him, all with the Bodyguard, Outflank, Paired Opportunists, and Gang Up feats, not only does he aid AC against the attack with an AoO, now that creature provokes 4 AoOs. And if any of these players are using a Crit-Fishing weapon, chances are they will provoke even more attacks, all from an action that otherwise does not provoke at all.
So let's evaluate here; with these feats, according to your style (that apparently PFS follows), the Players have the following benefits:
1. If any creature makes an attack, and a Player uses Bodyguard, while the other players threaten, that creature takes 4 Attacks of Opportunity, one from each player. This applies to every attack the creature makes, because each player has Bodyguard, and can therefore Expend AoOs.
2. Because at least 3 of the 4 Players are threatening the Creature, every one of them counts as Flanking, and receives double the Flanking bonuses, making it much easier to hit a foe. This could be expanded even further with Improved Outflank, to instead triple the bonuses.
3. If any player confirms a Critical hit (because all of them count as flanking), every ally (thanks to Paired Opportunists, you can take those attacks) can make an Attack of Opportunity on top of it. Assuming 15-20/X2 weapons, on average, at least one PC will make a Critical hit.
I kid you not, this will probably be an endgame Tucker's Kobolds situation (which is fitting, since Kobolds have a Racial Dexterity Bonus), where they drop in out of nowhere, surrounding PCs, and if any of them try to move or attack or cast spells, they'll provoke a literal crapton of AoOs.
Granted, that's a lot of investment, it's still broken as hell (and if the characters are otherwise properly optimized, they'll 1-round creatures that are magnitudes above their APL/CR), and I highly doubt you want PFS GMs ripping their hair out over something that's obviously not intended, and that will turn Bodyguard into the next Crane Wing/Riposte.
Aid Another. This doesn't mean you make an Attack of Opportunity, involving an attack roll to deal hit point damage to the target of the provocation, merely that you spend one to perform a separate activity that you normally could not do with spending an Attack of Opportunity.Not all attacks have to involve dealing hit point damage. In particular, among actions that can be taken in combat, Aid Another is listed as a Special Attack along with Combat Maneuvers such as Tripping and Sundering. Aid Another is a Special Attack, but an Attack nonetheless.
So, Bodyguard does say use an attack of opportunity as opposed to make an attack of opportunity, but since Aid Another is technically an attack, what Bodyguard lets you do is use an Attack of Opportunity to make an Attack, and that means that you are doing with Bodyguard is making an attack of opportunity. That means other Attack of Opportunity rules apply, including provoking.
Obviously not, but my point is that the attack is specifically directed at the enemy for some sort of negative effect (hit points, ability score damage/drain, level drain, etc). Even effects like Grab should not trigger on Bodyguard (which apply to any attacks, including AoOs), especially when it's unclear as to who would suffer the effects of the Grab (the person you're aiding, or the person whose attack you're deflecting?), whereas by your interpretation, they do.
And Aid Another is not an attack. Flat out. There is no technicalities whatsoever. Bodyguard lets you use (read: expend) an Attack of Opportunity to take the Aid Another Action for AC against the attack which caused the proxy. It makes an Attack Roll, against AC 10, as called out by the Aid Another action, but is not in itself an Attack against the creature, and is doubly dubious when it's a ranged attack that you don't have the reach to fulfill. Similarly, Trip, Sunder, et. al. aren't attacks, but they are Combat Maneuvers that require Attack Rolls. The key here is that just because it requires a roll to hit the same target DCs that attacks do, doesn't make them the same thing.
Again, provocation is not needed for Bodyguard to apply, and is extremely imperative for actions that attack a creature and explicitly say "This does not provoke an attack of opportunity." After all, by your argument, Bodyguard could not be taken against attacks and similar subjects which specifically state they do not provoke. And that's not intended at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You keep cutting off Special Attacks.
Special Attacks
This section discusses all of the various standard maneuvers you can perform during combat other than normal attacks, casting spells, or using other class abilities. Some of these special attacks can be made as part of another action (such as an attack) or as an attack of opportunity.
Aid Another is not an attack. Flat out.It flat-out is, plain and simple. It's right in the Core Rulebook
Special Attacks...
Aid Another...
Charge...
Combat Maneuvers...
Feint...under the section Special Attacks. The rules say it's an attack: a Special Attack, but an Attack nonetheless.
What in the rules makes you think Aid Another is not an attack?
Fingers and Thumbs must be exactly the same thing then.
So are Spells and Spell-like Abilities. (Remember when SLAs qualified for PrC entries just like Spells did? Nope!)
So are Hands and "Hands". (Remember when you could use a Two-Handed Weapon with Armor Spikes for TWF? Nope!)
So are Weapons and Weapon-like Spells, and Rays. (Under development, but should be extremely straight forward as to how they're different.)
So are Attacks and Attack Actions (and their Full counterparts. Vital Strike had a field day with that).
So are Klars and Shields. (Yeah, I'm still not letting go of that one.)
There are many things that are defined as being similar, or being fundamentally the same thing, but they are classified as being different entities, and there are differences between these entities. They're even called out, and labeled as separate entities. Trying to treat them the same only results in headaches and fallacies amongst how these same-yet-different mechanics interact with the game.
Tripping is not an Attack. It's a Combat Maneuver. I'm not rolling for hit point damage on a hit, nor am I checking my attack roll against any form of AC. I'm not even using the term "hit" or "miss" when it comes to Trip, Sunder, et. al., the term used for such conditional parameters being met is "success," "failure," and their other tense'd wordings (succeeded, successful, failed et. al).
The only things the two have in common is that A. Both use the same weapon to execute the Attack/Combat Maneuver, and B. Both use an Attack Roll to determine success/hit or failure/miss. That's it. The only reason why you can add your Weapon's Enhancement Bonus to the Combat Maneuver check is because Weapon Enhancement Bonuses apply to Attack Rolls. If it applied only to Attacks, then by RAW, you could not apply it to Combat Maneuvers.
You can make a Trip maneuver in exchange of one of your attacks, but that does not in itself make Trip an attack. By that logic, when the Magus uses Spell Combat, and instead of using an off-hand weapon, he uses a Spell, that doesn't mean the Spell is an Attack, or a Weapon. The spell, is a spell, is a spell. By your logic, he could instead substitute Spells being cast during Spell Combat for Spell-like Abilities, but by RAW, that won't fly, because Spells (drawn from the Magus spell list, I might add), and Spell-like Abilities, aren't the same thing.
Yes, Tripping is an attack. Aid Another is an attack, both are listed under the rules as attacks
You can make a Trip maneuver in exchange of one of your attacks, but that does not in itself make Trip an attackMaybe not, but what does make it an attack is that the Core Rulebook says it's an attack.
What makes Aid Another an Attack is that the Core Rulebook says it's an attack.
By that logic,It's not logic. It's the rules.
I guess you could call it logic. The logic goes something like this:
Is Aid Another an Attack?
The rules say it's an attack.
Therefore, Aid Another is an Attack.
That hardly rates as logic, though.
Special Attacks...
Aid Another...
Charge...
Combat Maneuvers...
Feint...I have evidence, and you don't.
What you need to do is
1. outweigh my evidence with evidence with your own, perhaps also demonstrate that my evidence somehow fails to make my point, in this case that Aid Another is an Attack.
2. Concede this point and move on to things you seem to want to debate more, such as the consequences for the game of interpreting Bodyguard one way or another.
3. Move on to such topics without conceding those points.
4. Or of course, hold your peace altogether.
Honestly, I think you were making some interesting points about gaming consequences, and I would like to get to those.
Right now, you are saying a bunch of insightful stuff that while is not false, is not to the point of whether Aid Another is an Attack in the face of the fact that the rules just say so.
They're listed under the rules as Special Attacks. Special Attacks and Attacks are not the same thing, and here you are, characterizing them as if they were. Not the rules, you are. The rules don't characterize them as being the same thing, because if they were, they would be under the same subsection. They're not. So how are you getting that they're attacks, when A. they don't specifically say that they are attacks (Death Effects, anyone?), and B. they're not listed as, or fall under being the same thing as attacks?
The rules sure as hell won't allow me to Charge on an Attack of Opportunity, yet according to you, I can take an option that is normally a Full-Round Action, for free, if an enemy provokes. No sane GM, both homebrew and PFS, would allow that, but according to you, I can do that.
And yet Aid Another behaves nothing like any other attack listed in the book. Even if that's what makes it special, it extremely lacks in the qualities needed to fulfill the textbook definition of an attack; it might as well be its own little section.
That's what we're contending here: What features should a subject emulate for it to be considered an attack (and therefore valid to use as exchange for an Attack of Opportunity)? We can sit here and say "It's Toe-May-Toe," "No, it's Toe-Mah-Toe" until we're blue in the face, but it won't accomplish anything unless we refer to the actual descriptions of the subjects in question.
So let's review them, shall we?
Aid Another:
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an 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), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.
You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character's skill check.
I don't think an action that helps an ally make an attack (or defend against one) constitutes as actually being an attack. Considering this is also used for skill checks, saving throws, etc. This affects too many different things for this to be an attack.
I also don't see any specific text in this description that calls this out as being an attack. So unless we're just using the "Headers make the decisions for us" argument, there's nothing here that a Society GM would tell you is applicable for an Attack of Opportunity. And even the above argument wouldn't hold water for said Society GM.
Charge:
Charging is a special full-round action that [/b]allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.[/b]
Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.
You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.
If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.
Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
A charging character gets a +2 bonus on combat maneuver attack rolls made to bull rush an opponent.
Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.
Lances and Charge Attacks: A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge.
Weapons Readied against a Charge: Spears, tridents, and other weapons with the brace feature deal double damage when readied (set) and used against a charging character.
That's a lot of added rules and restrictions for something that's apparently just an attack. It's also movement (albeit restricted), applies circumstantial modifiers, and other things that attacks otherwise aren't supposed to have or deal with.
I also highly doubt it's safe to assume that just because it contains an attack, or even elements of an attack, that it's an attack. There have been many cases where these assumptions were made, and these were, in fact, wrong. This case isn't any different.
You have a lot of stuff wrong with the Maneuvers as well. Firstly, regarding Bull Rush, Attack Action is a Standard Action. So a feat that's supposed to reduce the action required, without actually reducing the action required makes no sense, and wastes text.
Here's what the text actually says:
On your turn, you can perform a single bull rush combat maneuver in place of one of your melee attacks. You must choose the melee attack with the highest base attack bonus to make the bull rush.
So, instead of my highest BAB attack, I make the Bull Rush at my highest BAB, and then follow the rest of my Iteratives as if they were normal attacks. Makes much more sense. Additionally, since it must be on my turn, I couldn't possibly Bull Rush outside my turn, unless I'm cheating.
Here's the Shield Slam text:
Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack, substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check (see Combat). This bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
So, instead of making a separate roll to confirm the Bull Rush, the Attack Roll applies to both the AC and CMD of the creature, for the Attack and Bull Rush, respectively. There is no Free Actions to take here. Not even Bull Rush Strike has those rules.
Grappling is also incorrect. Here's the Greater Grapple text:
You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to grapple a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Grapple. Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action. This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks. You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple.
Normal: Maintaining a grapple is a standard action.
This feat proves that initiating and maintaining a Grapple are two separate things, and that you cannot take the Move Action option until the creature in question is actually Grappled. So, this means you must spend a Standard Action to initiate the Grapple first, though if you do succeed, you can Maintain the Grapple as a Move Action in the same round (meaning you could Pin someone within a single round). But you can't spend Move Actions to Initiate the Grapple if, for example, you're Nauseated, or under similar restrictions.
Whenever you use Greater Grapple to successfully maintain a grapple as a move action, you can then spend a swift action to make a grapple combat maneuver check.
In order to use this, you must succeed as maintaining a Grapple as a Move Action. Doing so as a Standard Action would not constitute this, but yes, you could technically tie someone up in the same round if you had this feat chain.
Hamatula Strike gets the green card, since it functions effectively no different from the Grab monster ability, but it only triggers on a successful hit; in other words, only as part of an attack. The grapple itself cannot be done as its own separate activity.
Except that is the contention as to why we're disagreeing; we don't agree upon what constitutes whether something is an attack or not, and the book doesn't explicitly define what an attack actually is.
Though I just came up with something to test that: Invisibility.
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
If Aid Another breaks Invisibility, then it's an attack. If not, then it's not really an attack. If you can prove to me that Aid Another breaks Invisibility, then I won't question or argue this point any further.
Adding on to the other points though, if the conception that using Aid Another to distract/interfere with opponents is what constitutes Aid Another being an attack, then you would have to concede that Aid Another can or cannot be an attack, depending on how it's used. You even said it yourself that taking an action to help defend against an attack isn't (always) an attack, and that's precisely what Bodyguard is used for, and is especially true, when Bodyguard does not require you being able to attack the enemy who attacked your adjacent ally, whereas standard Aid Another procedures do.
That being said, I don't think you could argue against yourself, stating that Aid Another, in certain instances, is an attack. By your silly RAW argument, I'm attacking my allies when I'm using Aid Another to aid for Skill Checks or Saving Throws, for example, and that's because Aid Another, no matter how you use it, falls under being an attack; hell, by extremely strict RAW, I couldn't aid Skill Checks or Saving Throws on Spells unless I'm able to make an attack against an enemy who's able to attack my friend. The same applies for Bodyguard. And all of that's obviously not intended.
I could picture those scenario right now:
"Hey, why the hell are you swinging my sword at me?"
"I'm trying to make you better at avoiding attacks when you're moving by actually attacking you, duh!"
I suppose all Aid Anothers fall under the premise of "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball"?
So, following the RAW to the T, Bodyguard falls upon itself and can't get up to work ever, and Aid Another is about as clunky as a rusted robot trying to be a knight. Thank the gods we have RAI, otherwise this game could never function correctly unless it was written by some crazy lawyer gamer.
Aid Another IRT skills is not the same ability as the (Special) Attack Aid Another. They are different concepts that have the same name. You can tell, because they don't use the same language, or function the same way, or have the same action economy, and they're in totally different parts of the book. They don't reference each other. They are unrelated.
You (and you aren't the only one) also seems confused about how Bodyguard works in isolation. So Bodyguard lets you use Aid Another off turn when specific conditions are met. Nowhere does Bodyguard contain language that abrogates the conditions required by Aid Another. You still have to obey all rules of Aid Another. You still must threaten the enemy who triggers the feat, because the rules of the attack say you have to. If Bodyguard triggers, and the Bodyguard doesn't threaten the triggering enemy, nothing happens. No AoO is expended, because the Bodyguard doesn't threaten, and so can't attack, and so can't use Aid Another.
Aid Another IRT skills is not the same ability as the (Special) Attack Aid Another. They are different concepts that have the same name. You can tell, because they don't use the same language, or function the same way, or have the same action economy, and they're in totally different parts of the book. They don't reference each other. They are unrelated.
You (and you aren't the only one) also seems confused about how Bodyguard works in isolation. So Bodyguard lets you use Aid Another off turn when specific conditions are met. Nowhere does Bodyguard contain language that abrogates the conditions required by Aid Another. You still have to obey all rules of Aid Another. You still must threaten the enemy who triggers the feat, because the rules of the attack say you have to. If Bodyguard triggers, and the Bodyguard doesn't threaten the triggering enemy, nothing happens. No AoO is expended, because the Bodyguard doesn't threaten, and so can't attack, and so can't use Aid Another.
Funny you say that, since Aid Another in the Combat section does mention aiding skill checks and spells in the same section that involves AC and to-hit. I actually directly linked that from the PRD up the page, so saying they are unrelated is a minor stretch, and one would argue that in combat situations (chase scenarios, anyone?), you have to be able to hit an enemy in order to use Aid Another at all.
I already know how Bodyguard works in isolation. I already know that RAW, Bodyguard doesn't actually circumvent the standard rules set for Aid Another. I already know that RAW, the conditions are that you are in a position to make an attack on an enemy who is in melee combat with an ally (i.e. you don't actually have to be adjacent to your ally to Aid Another normally). I already know that Bodyguard requires you to be adjacent to utilize the feat. I already know that if the conditions aren't met, then Aid Another (and therefore the feat) can't be used. I already know all of this.
What you don't know, is the RAI regarding the feat. Bodyguard is supposed to circumvent these restrictions, and unfortunately, doesn't actually say that. The developer of the Bodyguard feat himself, says all of this. It's also been FAQ'd to hell, given how many posts and threads have been made to provide an answer, and there still isn't a FAQ for it.
Quite frankly, if it was FAQ'd, I can guarantee you that Bodyguard will be nerfed to uselessness just like every other Martial option in Pathfinder, and its relevant feats (In Harm's Way, Combat Reflexes, etc.) will indirectly follow suit.
You still must threaten the enemy who triggers the feat, because the rules of the attack say you have to. If Bodyguard triggers, and the Bodyguard doesn't threaten the triggering enemy, nothing happens. No AoO is expended, because the Bodyguard doesn't threaten, and so can't attack, and so can't use Aid Another.
This is not accurate.
If it were, Bodyguard would be useless against ranged attacks or enemies with reach.
That is not how the feat works.
This is not accurate.
If it were, Bodyguard would be useless against ranged attacks or enemies with reach.
That is not how the feat works.
Did you read Darksol link?
If "provoke" would be defined as "do a thing which allows someone to make an AoO against you", that still doesn't imply the reverse.
Did you read Darksol link?This is not accurate.
If it were, Bodyguard would be useless against ranged attacks or enemies with reach.
That is not how the feat works.
After I posted, yes. Left my comment up to reiterate. Darksol's point was well made.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You still must threaten the enemy who triggers the feat, because the rules of the attack say you have to. If Bodyguard triggers, and the Bodyguard doesn't threaten the triggering enemy, nothing happens. No AoO is expended, because the Bodyguard doesn't threaten, and so can't attack, and so can't use Aid Another.
This is not accurate.
If it were, Bodyguard would be useless against ranged attacks or enemies with reach.
That is not how the feat works.
Clearly it is. Aid other requires you to be "in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat." Bodyguard says you can use Aid Another as either an immediate interrupt or AoO depending on your reading of the skill. It doesn't say you can use Aid Another on ranged attacks (which isn't allowed by Aid Another) and it doesn't say you can use Aid Another on an enemy you can't hit with a melee attack. The feat doesn't spell out exceptions to established rules, therefore those rules are in force. Does that make Bodyguard useless? Very nearly. But that's what the rules say.
Aid Another IRT skills is not the same ability as the (Special) Attack Aid Another. They are different concepts that have the same name. You can tell, because they don't use the same language, or function the same way, or have the same action economy, and they're in totally different parts of the book. They don't reference each other. They are unrelated.
Funny you say that, since Aid Another in the Combat section does mention aiding skill checks and spells in the same section that involves AC and to-hit.
You're right. That's what I get for trusting the website without checking the CRB.
That said, you would clearly use the version of Aid Another that covers what you're trying to do. The rules specify how Aid Another works with Skill checks. Using Aid Another in combat to either give a bonus to attack or AC is explicitly called an attack by the CRB. It explicitly asks you to MAKE AN ATTACK ROLL. When using Aid Another on skill checks, it explicitly asks you to MAKE A SKILL CHECK. What exactly it means by "such as when he is affected by a spell" means is up in the air. Presumably you can give them a bonus to their saving throw, but that needs an FAQ of it's own.
What you don't know, is the RAI regarding the feat. Bodyguard is supposed to circumvent these restrictions, and unfortunately, doesn't actually say that. The developer of the Bodyguard feat himself, says all of this. It's also been FAQ'd to hell, given how many posts and threads have been made to provide an answer, and there still isn't a FAQ for it.Quite frankly, if it was FAQ'd, I can guarantee you that Bodyguard will be nerfed to uselessness just like every other Martial option in Pathfinder, and its relevant feats (In Harm's Way, Combat Reflexes, etc.) will indirectly follow suit.
I apologize for my language. It seemed clear to me from your posts that you didn't know how Bodyguard actually works. And I've been presented with the author's intent several times. I simply don't see why I should care.
Here's the most important part of what Jason said:
While as always my authorial opinions are simply that, and not official errata in any way for the purpose of RAW, PFS, etc....
Emphasis mine.
Intent is irrelevant. I'm sure you'll have no trouble on your own coming up with an example of the best of intentions leading to disaster, both from fiction and real life. Jason's interpretation of the feat he wrote doesn't change the feat he wrote. I KNOW, absolutely, unequivocally, that a FAQ will a) make it clear that the AoO is ONLY a resource to be spent, and not an actual AoO and b) allow you to use Bodyguard to use Aid Another against ranged attacks. I know this because that's the feat they wanted in the first place. That's not the feat they wrote.
EDIT: Removed some needlessly provocative language.
I wouldn't say that it's "explicitly called an attack." It involves an attack roll, sure, but attack rolls don't always equate to being attacks. After all, there is a reason why Enhancement Bonuses are applied to Attack Rolls, and not just Attacks. If the terms were to be synonymous in terms of intent, application, and justification for other effects, abilities, etc. why use different wording from that is otherwise the same game term?
I did pose some conditions that would make me unequivocally concede my point. IF, Aid Another breaks Invisibility because the bearer is considered attacking when increasing AC, a Skill Check, etc., then Aid Another, no matter how you manage it, is an attack, and I'll concede it.
My argument for chase scenarios and Aiding Skills during Combat still stand, since that too covers what you would do in regards to Skill Checks, and in fact, is doubly restricted at the most, since you still have to follow the Combat rules regarding Aid Another (which is to make attacks on an enemy who is in Melee Combat with an ally).
I'm sorry that I didn't make this part clear, but when I said "the developer of the Bodyguard feat himself, says all of this," I was including his "RAW, Bodyguard still follows standard Aid Another procedures" statements.
Intent is very much relevant to determining the rules, especially when it comes to a Dev explaining what the feat is designed to do when it's unclear as to whether it is (or is not) supposed to work that way. Although I understand that it's black-and-white in this case, not every feat or rules section is as laid out as Bodyguard, and having intent (which FAQs help explain) is very damn important.
And with that being said, I've seen intents of Devs regarding feats become overruled by Buhlman's FAQ/Erratas, and I know the track record of Martial options going more downhill than a 90 degree angle, so I would not be surprised that if a Bodyguard FAQ/Errata were to be released, it would once again shaft Martials and their available options.
Who are you attacking? As noted earlier, you don't even have to be threatening the enemy attacker to use Bodyguard.
Standard use of Aid Another for AC is clearly about fouling the enemy's attack by "attacking" their swing.
Bodyguard uses the same basic mechanics, but the intent is clearly different. The bodyguard isn't interacting with the attacker at all. They are interacting with the target.
Who are you attacking? As noted earlier, you don't even have to be threatening the enemy attacker to use Bodyguard.
This is patently false. You DO need to be threatening the enemy to use Bodyguard. Jason stated his intent when he wrote it was that you didn't have to be, but he did it in a forum post, in which he said it wasn't an official ruling. He even said, in that very post, that by RAW you need to be threatening:
...if you're playing PFS or other RAW ... you could only use Bodyguard against a foe you threaten.
The ONLY thing Bodyguard allows you to do is use the Aid Another, with additional restrictions (+2 AC only) as an interrupt. Feats only break rules in the exact way they say they do. There is exactly as much language in Bodyguard to suggest you can use Aid Another against ranged attacks as there is to suggest that you don't have to make a roll to use Aid Another.
|
This is patently false. You DO need to be threatening the enemy to use Bodyguard. Jason stated his intent when he wrote it was that you didn't have to be, but he did it in a forum post, in which he said it wasn't an official ruling. He even said, in that very post, that by RAW you need to be threatening:Who are you attacking? As noted earlier, you don't even have to be threatening the enemy attacker to use Bodyguard.
It isn't patently false -- this is an example of multiple valid ways to read the rules.
My initial reading of the rules was that it was very clear that you don't need to threaten the attacker. I understand the interpretation that you do need to, and would never argue with a GM who wished to run it that way, but that's not how it works at my table.
The fact that the way that I read the rules is also apparently RAI is a nice bit of external validation, but that's all it is since it did not inform my initial reading.
|
|
Using Aid Another in the way described by the Bodyguard Feat constitutes an attack.
Is using aid another outside bodyguard considered an attack? If so, against who?
If it's an attack, can the enemy bodyguard or saving shield on the person im bodyguarding? Would this raise my target of ac 10? Does this make any sense thematically?No, because it's not an attack. It's a skill check vs dc 10 to aid another person in a relevant skill.
If you role a 20 for your bodyguard does it count as a critical for the purposes of other teamwork feats?
To interpret it as an attack leads to realms of absurdity we haven't vetted despite the large number of posts in this discussion.
This is patently false. You DO need to be threatening the enemy to use Bodyguard. Jason stated his intent when he wrote it was that you didn't have to be, but he did it in a forum post, in which he said it wasn't an official ruling. He even said, in that very post, that by RAW you need to be threatening:Who are you attacking? As noted earlier, you don't even have to be threatening the enemy attacker to use Bodyguard.
It isn't patently false -- this is an example of multiple valid ways to read the rules.
My initial reading of the rules was that it was very clear that you don't need to threaten the attacker. I understand the interpretation that you do need to, and would never argue with a GM who wished to run it that way, but that's not how it works at my table.
The fact that the way that I read the rules is also apparently RAI is a nice bit of external validation, but that's all it is since it did not inform my initial reading.
The interpretation that you don't need to threaten is just as wrong as an interpretation that says you don't need to make a roll, you automatically succeed. The FEAT doesn't say you have to make a roll, so who cares if Aid Another says you do?
I can understand the logic. The feat says you may attempt Aid Another when an enemy attacks an adjacent ally. It seems logical to say that you can attempt it regardless of where the enemy is. The door you open there is, well, I'm grappled, but there's nothing in the language of the feat that says I can't use bodyguard when I'm grappled, so I can. And I auto-succeed, because the feat doesn't say I have to roll.
You may attempt, the feat says. Ally is attacked. You attempt Aid Another. You don't threaten the enemy. Your attempt to use Aid Another fails.
If the feat said "you may use Aid Another," I would strenuously argue that a) you can use Aid Another whenever an adjacent ally is attacked at all (including touch attacks from spells, not that it would help) and b) you don't have to roll, you just succeed.
You are, of course, free to house rule however you want, but that's still house ruling.
Who are you attacking? As noted earlier, you don't even have to be threatening the enemy attacker to use Bodyguard.
This is patently false. You DO need to be threatening the enemy to use Bodyguard. Jason stated his intent when he wrote it was that you didn't have to be, but he did it in a forum post, in which he said it wasn't an official ruling. He even said, in that very post, that by RAW you need to be threatening:
So the intent of the designer of the feat means nothing. Gotcha.
I'll just keep using the feat the way it was meant to be used. You can use it in the way that renders it completely useless. Have fun with that.