According to James Jacobs,
"Bodyguard does indeed allow you to protect someone when you're not in melee range of an attacking creature."My question is, can it be done with a ranged weapon (assuming i'm in melee range of my ally)?
For what it worth, I would say that yes, while aid another is a melee *action* (that gets somewhat bypassed by the bodyguard feat), the attack roll isn't called as a melee attack roll. Is it actually rules-legal, or just my crazy interpretation?
Thanks a lot :)
I'm afraid you're crazy :)
There is such a thing as a "melee attack,," meaning an attack with a melee weapon. But I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as a "melee attack roll" so there is nothing more to be called out. (I don't believe there's such a thing as a "melee action," either.) It's melee all the way down.
P.S. In general you'll also want to remember that JJ, while likely to be correct, is not an authoritative rules source.
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.
The bodyguard ability alters the Aid Another action in several ways:
1) You use it in response to an attack not in anticipation of an attack.
2) You must be adjacent to your ally instead of the enemy.
3) You cannot use it to improve your ally's attack bonus.
4) You use an AoO instead of a standard action to perform the action.
It does not alter the requirement that you are in melee combat and, therefore, making melee attacks.
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.
The target, your ally instead of your enemy, has changed but the melee attack requirement has not.
The target, your ally instead of your enemy, has changed but the melee attack requirement has not.
I am curious how you reach the conclusion that Bodyguard alters 'opponent' to 'ally' but doesn't also alter 'position to make a melee attack' to simply 'adjacent to ally'.
From what I can see, there are only two plausible conclusions to how the feat works. Either it only changes that action requirement if you are adjacent to an ally (standard to AoO) but still requires everything else from aid another, such as being able to attack the enemy in melee OR it entirely ignores the requirements for aid another i.e. you don't need to be able to make a melee attack on an opponent.
I don't see how you could choose just half to apply.
2) You must be adjacent to your ally instead of the enemy.I am curious how you reach the conclusion that Bodyguard alters 'opponent' to 'ally'Like Dave Justus, I do see how Bodyguard requires you be adjacent to your ally, but I do not see where Bodyguard offers an exception to Aid Another's requirement that you be "in position to make a melee attack on" your (ally's) opponent.
The target, your ally instead of your enemy, has changed but the melee attack requirement has not.I REALLY don't see that at all! The Aid Another Special Attack is when you interfere with an opponent to the benefit of your ally, either to increase your ally's Attack Roll or AC.
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent.What part of the text of Bodyguard changes the target? It changes the Action required: an Attack of Opportunity instead of a Standard Action. It limits the usage: only to raise the AC and not the Attack Roll. It requires that you not only be in position to attack the opponent, but also adjacent to the ally. But the flavor text says
Your swift strikes ward off enemiesI just don't see that meaning that you are striking your ally.
The Bodyguard feat says if you are adjacent to an ally you can use the aid another action period. It does NOT say if you are adjacent to your ally and meet the usual requirements for aid another you can do so. Feats allow you to do exactly what they say and this one says that when you are adjacent to an ally who is being attacked by a melee attack you can use aid another, period.
As pointed out by the OP James Jacobs agrees with this reasoning stating that the feat does allow you to guard someone when you are not within melee range of the attacking enemy. Though he may not be a rules authority he does have inside access to the deliberations of the dev team to better understand their interpretations of the rules. While his word is not the final law it should be considered strong evidence unless counter evidence is available.
So this interpretation is intuitive, the feat does exactly what it says it does, and has the agreement of someone with inside knowledge of the feat's design.
The Bodyguard feat says if you are adjacent to an ally you can use the aid another action period.
I totally get that interpretation.
What I don't get is, given that interpretation how you conclude:
It does not alter the requirement that you are in melee combat and, therefore, making melee attacks.
The Bodyguard feat says if you are adjacent to an ally you can use the aid another action period. It does NOT say if you are adjacent to your ally and meet the usual requirements for aid another you can do so. Feats allow you to do exactly what they say and this one says that when you are adjacent to an ally who is being attacked by a melee attack you can use aid another, period.Feats only grant exceptions that they say they grant. Bodyguard doesn't say that it gives you the ability to attack your opponent when you can't reach him, and if the developers meant to say that, then they should have, since it's not true unless they say it officially.
Meanwhile, in order to make sense of this ability to make an attack when you can't reach your opponent, you are also supposing that you are actually attacking your own ally, which is also not supported in the rules and not very intuitive.
James Jacobs agrees with this reasoning stating that the feat does allow you to guard someone when you are not within melee range of the attacking enemy. Though he may not be a rules authority he does have inside access to the deliberations of the dev team to better understand their interpretations of the rules. While his word is not the final law it should be considered strong evidence unless counter evidence is available.Okay, but I have stronger evidence.
Here is something that the designers did officially say that speaks to their intent about Aid Another vis a vis Bodyguard.
Loyal Bodyguard (Ex): A protector gains Bodyguard (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player’s Guide 151) and Combat Reflexes as bonus feats.... it can use Bodyguard to aid another to improve its master’s AC even if it doesn’t threaten the attacking foe.Protector Familiars have a special ability to use Bodyguard even when they don't Threaten their opponents. The designers' intent clearly is that normally you can't. And anyway, the rules...
Yep, I'm not familiar (pardon the pun lol) with the familiar archetypes. In light of that text I have to agree with you and revise my position.
In fairness, the Protector Familiar Archetype doesn't offer a lot of evidence either way. It could be a special rules exception that wouldn't apply to body guard, or it could be simply clarifying text, and strictly rules speaking unnecessary. Saying the protector can, doesn't automatically imply that anyone cannot.
In truth, the best evidence for the narrow reading of the feat, is that the 'normal' section of the feat i.e. what it changed from the regular rules, only talks about actions. Given that the text doesn't specifically mention a change to aid another, only that it says you can use it, this seems to me that you still have to be in melee range of the opponent.
In fairness, the Protector Familiar Archetype doesn't offer a lot of evidence either way. It could be a special rules exception that wouldn't apply to body guard, or it could be simply clarifying text, and strictly rules speaking unnecessary. Saying the protector can, doesn't automatically imply that anyone cannot.
In truth, the best evidence for the narrow reading of the feat, is that the 'normal' section of the feat i.e. what it changed from the regular rules, only talks about actions. Given that the text doesn't specifically mention a change to aid another, only that it says you can use it, this seems to me that you still have to be in melee range of the opponent.
That is a good point as well. The normal section just mentions the action required rather than also mentioning the adjacency to enemies requirement.
All in all you both have convinced me I was incorrect in how I was looking at the feat.
|
On the other hand the normal text of bodyguard doesn't mention that you normally only have to be in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat. So using the normal sections referenced to determine what the benefit section changes would mean you wouldn't have to be adjacent to your ally.
On the other hand the normal text of bodyguard doesn't mention that you normally only have to be in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat. So using the normal sections referenced to determine what the benefit section changes would mean you wouldn't have to be adjacent to your ally.
Since that is specifically spelled out in the text of the feat, it is obvious that that is a requirement to use the feat.
Whether the aid another rules are further changed is unclear. It could be read as the feat changing that, or it could be read as the feat only changing the action required and when it can be done, in certain positioning arrangements. The 'normal' section provides evidence that it is only the action being changed.
The normal section doesn't necessarily prove anything, but it does provide evidence as to the best interpretation of two plausible readings of the feat text.
|
|
For the original poster,
If you are adjacent to your target and use James Jacobs interpretation of Bodyguard, and your GM has a problem with you having a ranged weapon in your hands when you perform Bodyguard,you can use an unarmed strike, gauntlet, armor spikes, dwarven boulder helm or one of several other weapons which do not take up your hands. You could probably even say you are using the ranged weapon as an improvised club.
For the original poster,
If you are adjacent to your target and use James Jacobs interpretation of Bodyguard, and your GM has a problem with you having a ranged weapon in your hands when you perform Bodyguard,you can use an unarmed strike, gauntlet, armor spikes, dwarven boulder helm or one of several other weapons which do not take up your hands. You could probably even say you are using the ranged weapon as an improvised club.
Keep in mind that James Jacobs' interpretation is actually based off of the developer who created the Bodyguard feat for the APG.
Jason Nelson, the developer behind the feat, has stated that by the rules, Bodyguard does require you to be in melee range of the enemy, meaning if you attempted this against a ranged attack, it wouldn't work. However, the intent of the feat is to work with any attack made against an adjacent ally, and doesn't require you to be able to make an attack against the enemy that provokes it. In addition, you don't have to threaten or be able to make an attack on your ally's square, either, meaning you don't need your bow or any melee weapon to perform the activity.
I'm sure if you do a quick search on the forums, you'll find his post that mentions essentially what I just said.
|
|
I have read several bodyguard threads. What I have seen is that while the text does not let people decisively determine how the feat works, most people (based on a poll performed by liking one of two posts) thought it was acceptable to only be next to the ally. I also saw posts from a person claiming to have written the feat that said, they were picturing the person only being adjacent to the person being defended and were aiding by pushing them out of the way of incoming attacks.
As the feat stands right now talk to your GM before investing in the feat to see if he interprets the feat in a way you find it worth spending a feat on. If you are in organized play, every once in a while the feat will do basically nothing.
I once had a PFS judge rule that I could only use Bodyguard if the opponent provoked an AOO as AOOs are not an action so you don't get to spend them without being given them.
For the original poster,
If you are adjacent to your target and use James Jacobs interpretation of Bodyguard, and your GM has a problem with you having a ranged weapon in your hands when you perform Bodyguard,you can use an unarmed strike, gauntlet, armor spikes, dwarven boulder helm or one of several other weapons which do not take up your hands. You could probably even say you are using the ranged weapon as an improvised club.
Keep in mind that James Jacobs' interpretation is actually based off of the developer who created the Bodyguard feat for the APG.
Jason Nelson, the developer behind the feat, has stated that by the rules, Bodyguard does require you to be in melee range of the enemy, meaning if you attempted this against a ranged attack, it wouldn't work. However, the intent of the feat is to work with any attack made against an adjacent ally, and doesn't require you to be able to make an attack against the enemy that provokes it. In addition, you don't have to threaten or be able to make an attack on your ally's square, either, meaning you don't need your bow or any melee weapon to perform the activity.
I'm sure if you do a quick search on the forums, you'll find his post that mentions essentially what I just said.
Seems to me this is a feat that could legitimately use some official clarification.
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.
Bolded for emphasis. I think the confusion mostly stems from this.
By RAW, you must be in melee combat and able to make a melee attack on your opponent in order to attempt to (with a melee attack roll vs. AC 10) aid your ally's AC. This suggests that for Bodyguard to function, you must be able to make a melee attack against the opponent attacking your ally; i.e. you're adjacent to your ally, the attacking opponent is within your reach, and you're able to make a melee attack against said opponent (this suggests that you must threaten the opponent).
That aside, my initial impression was also that you could use the Bodyguard feat to protect an ally from ranged attacks as well. I have yet to see this situation play out at my table, however. I've only ever seen the Bodyguard feat used against melee attacks.