|
| 52 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The previous thread was lost to the answered in FAQ, but not "bug". Here is a repost clearly stating the question:
Does the AoO granted by Bodyguard follow the normal rules for for AoOs (including being in melee threat range of the enemy), or is the only requirement that you be adjacent to your ally?
Still nothing?
|
There has been extended discussion of this very point in other threads. It is unresolved, and each GM must decide individually, unless the Devs see fit to answer this FAQ.
The two interpretations are:
1. In order to use the Bodyguard feat the Bodyguard must be adjacent to the person they protect.
2. In order to use the Bodyguard feat the Bodyguard must be adjacent to the person they protect, AND the Bodyguard must threaten the attacker.
The RAW seem to allow either interpretation, depending on how one applies legalese to Pathfinder game rules.
Most of the Pathfinder GMs I've played with go with Option 1. I've seen it come up a few times. I also made that call when GMing.
The more restrictive interpretation, Option 2, is very difficult to meet, and renders Bodyguard nearly useless. It's not as though Bodyguard is overly powerful, even with the less restrictive interpretation. I choose Option 1. so as not to gimp a flavorful feat.
The previous thread was lost to the answered in FAQ, but not "bug". Here is a repost clearly stating the question:
Does the AoO granted by Bodyguard follow the normal rules for for AoOs (including being in melee threat range of the enemy), or is the only requirement that you be adjacent to your ally?
For what I understand, Bodyguard work this way:
1) You're adjacent to an ally.2) Your ally is attacked.
3) If you fullfill the "aid another" requirements, you can use one of your available AoO to make an "aid another" action to give a +2 CA to your ally.
Now, I didn't read the thread you linked, but it seems the confusion is in the " you may use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action": you don't make an AoO. You give up one of your available AoO to make an aid another action. Period. It seems to me really clear. If you have Dex 16, you have 4 AoOs. If an ally adjacent to you is attacked, you can, with the speed of an AoO (that is, it trigger before the attack resolution), give up one of your AoOs to attempt a to hit CA 10 to give +2 CA to your ally. Then, if you do that, you'll have only 3 AoOs left to use until your next turn.
Bodyguard don't follow the rules for making an AoO, but as it clearly states, it follow the rules of aid another, that requires you to be able to attack your enemy:
If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat
So, you must be able to attack him in melee. That is, you must be armed and threatening. I really don't see the confusion.
It doesn't provide rules changing how aid other is used just adds a condition of when.
Ergo your adjacent ally is attacked are you in a position to apply aid other as per its normal requirements.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It doesn't provide rules changing how aid other is used just adds a condition of when.
Ergo your adjacent ally is attacked are you in a position to apply aid other as per its normal requirements.
I don't get why we get FAQ (that are unlikely to ever get answered) asked that would need to deviate with the required exception to deviate.
In other words, if you get an AoO and you are not in melee range of the provoking target then you can't take the AoO.
Sounds like there's no need for an FAQ. Just follow the train of reasoning.
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.
If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat.
You can use up one of your AoO's for the round to instead use the standard Aid Another, which can only be used on an ally that is in your range and is also threatening the same enemy as you.
In other words, if you get an AoO and you are not in melee range of the provoking target then you can't take the AoO.
True, but you're seeing it from the wrong side. Don't focus on the AoO, it change the "when" not the "how". Let's focus on aid another: aid another let you to hit AC 10 as standard action to give your ally a +2 AC or +2 to hit. Now, you can aid another as standard action even if you're flanking , that is not adjacent to your ally, or even with a reach weapon if you're opposite to your ally. Bodyguard let you aid another in exchange of an AoO at the time of an AoO (that is, you can make an AoO when your ally is attacked, but only to give him a +2 AC via aid another), but requires you to be adjacent to your ally. If you see it from the aid another perspective, you can see it's exchange the time needed for the aid another action with a restriction on yuor positioning on the battlefield.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
wrong side. Don't focus on the AoO, it change the "when" not the "how".
It doesn't matter what side you focus on, if the ability doesn't have a line saying "and you don't need to be adjacent to the attacker" then you need to be adjacent to the attacker.
Bodyguard add that you must be adjacent to your ally. So to use it as written you must be adjacent to the ally and the opponent.
I understand your view and assertion, I just strongly disagree with you.
wrong side. Don't focus on the AoO, it change the "when" not the "how".It doesn't matter what side you focus on, if the ability doesn't have a line saying "and you don't need to be adjacent to the attacker" then you need to be adjacent to the attacker.
You need to threaten him, as Jadeite pointed out. Or, to be precise, you must be in position to make a melee attack, that is about the same. You need to be adjacent to an ally AND you need to be able to make a melee attack against the opponent. That means that if you are in line like you-ally-opponent with a reach weapon, you can still use the aid another to grant +2 AC with Bodyguard.
Bodyguard add that you must be adjacent to your ally. So to use it as written you must be adjacent to the ally and the opponent.
I understand your view and assertion, I just strongly disagree with you.
I think we're saying about the same thing. Maybe I just misread your post (english is not my native language, so maybe I didn't understand exactly what you wrote), but what I'm saying is that Bodyguard has nearly nothing to do with AoOs, it's instead a change of the "when" you can use aid another. Then, I'm agree that both for AoOs and Aid Another you still need to be able to make a melee attack against the opponent (that is, threaten him).
|
|
I believe the above comments illustrate clearly why this issue has been sent to the Pathfinder devs for clarification. People can make, and have made, all sorts of arguments and interpretations. One can distill these arguments into two camps. Once again I shall state the two seemingly legitimate RAW interpretations being called out for the Bodyguard feat:
Option 1 - In order to use the Bodyguard feat the Bodyguard must be adjacent to the person they protect.
Option 2 - In order to use the Bodyguard feat the Bodyguard must be adjacent to the person they protect, AND the Bodyguard must threaten the attacker.
I don't have a horse in this race. None of my PCs have the Bodyguard feat. In fact, I've avoided taking that feat specifically because I did not wish to bring confusion to any table, in the absence of a clear FAQ.
One can make a seemingly solid RAW argument for either position. It depends upon which side one looks at it from. Personally, I prefer Option 1, as it makes Bodyguard sometimes worth taking (but still not even remotely over powered). One can also make a strong argument for Option 2, which would doom bodyguard to join the ranks of "useless feats no one takes". Until it's decided, I'd not be taking that feat in PFS play, as a reasonable GM might come down on either side. That's why I hope the DEVs make a ruling on Bodyguard.
Please vote which option you personally prefer:
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Option 1 is clearly correct.
We differ on whether or not this is true. I don't believe it is at all clear this could be true. In order for it to be true, there would need to be language that tells us the AoO doesn't need to follow normal rules.
As for whether or not this will ever be clarified, there are many things similar that are still UN-clarified from 2009. I wouldn't hold my breath for a clarification where there is a conservative interpretation that is valid.
|
|
Then vote your preference! It's a POLL! It's quite obvious that at least one interpretation must be wrong. There has already been dozens of pages of argument about this very topic, leading to those two options. Further argument is unlikely to sway anyone who has already decided. Neither side is clearly wrong, and neither is clearly right. At least one must be wrong. Vote!
|
My forcefully retired monk (have you seen how crane wing was butchered?) has yet to play with a society gm who allowed me to use the feat conveniently. For the most part, select party members have had to maneuver adjacent to me or I have had to maneuver adjacent to them (on top of my regular and direct tanking duties) to get it to work. It sucks, makes an already high risk job (tanking) much more difficult, and forces my trick to be unreliable (because every fight peoples positions and the environment changes and you cannot adapt until after the crap has hit the fan). Despite all of this, I have made it work. But I sorely wish I could just be adjacent so I could spend more turns actively participating instead of moving, sucking up an all, not being able to full attack, and at his level, even normal attack (big monsters with reach) and then end my turn. Meh.
I believe the above comments illustrate clearly why this issue has been sent to the Pathfinder devs for clarification. People can make, and have made, all sorts of arguments and interpretations. One can distill these arguments into two camps. Once again I shall state the two seemingly legitimate RAW interpretations being called out for the Bodyguard feat:
Option 1 - In order to use the Bodyguard feat the Bodyguard must be adjacent to the person they protect.
Option 2 - In order to use the Bodyguard feat the Bodyguard must be adjacent to the person they protect, AND the Bodyguard must threaten the attacker.
Please vote which option you personally prefer:
None of them is correct. The only RAW possible reading, that imo is in this case the same of the RAI, is:
The Only Valid Option - In order to use the Bodyguard feat the Bodyguard must be adjacent to the person they protect, AND the Bodyguard must meet the requirements needed to make the aid another action, aside the standard action time.Simple and clear. No need for faq, no need for clarification.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the RAI (as posted by the author) is that you do not need to meet the requirements of the aid another action, ie: do not have to be in a position to attack the attacker.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Actually, the RAI (as posted by the author) ... do not have to be in a position to attack the attacker.
Then he did a poor job of articulating that in the final printed version. Perhaps because the RAI was changed by Paizo developers similar to how Titan archetype was changed to disallow colossal daggers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has been debated quite a number of times over the years and from the author's post and various threads the general consensus appears to be that:
A) The intent is to push the recipient out of the way of an incoming strike, even a ranged attack, without having to threaten the target.
and
B) The RAW disallows A.
With the advent of ways (such as Benevolent armor property and the Halfling-Helpful trait) to ramp up the bonus from Aid Another I doubt they will ever errata it to bring it into line with the Author's intent because then it becomes greatly imbalanced.
In my own games I house rule it to the Authors intent but state that you cannot combine it with abilities that increase Aid Another bonuses.
The feat is still useful if you have a reach weapon and/or Enlarge Person. Since the AoO is not against the enemy cover is not a factor and so you can set up behind your ally.
I didn't know that post, thanks. Still I'm agree that the wording is totally different from the RAI. RAW I have no doubt, you need to threaten.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blackstorm, you do not need to threaten, you need to be able to make an attack. They are not the same thing. :)
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.
The reason why "make a melee attack" does not equal "threaten" is because "make a melee attack" is a subset of "threaten".
I can make a melee attack with an unarmed strike. But because I do not have Improved Unarmed Strike I do not threaten with my unarmed strike. Because Aid Another only requires that I be able to make a melee attack against the attacker and not threaten I can use Aid Another with an unarmed strike.
Blackstorm, you do not need to threaten, you need to be able to make an attack. They are not the same thing. :)
Yup, absolutely, I know. I was a bit simplify the whole thing, all that you just said, but zipped :)
I think the concept was clear, thoug.
FrodoOf9Fingers, they used to say that all the time even though it wasn't.
I believe that that FAQ attempt was before their current system of FAQ responses when they had no way of indicating that they were not going to answer the FAQ for any of a variety of reasons including incorrect formatting or an unclear FAQ question.
My guess is that the question(s) were buried in the rest of the post (not bolded) and/or that there was more than one question (also something the Devs have stated is a bad thing for a FAQ attempt) so they chose to clear it from their list.
Blackstorm, I appreciate your trying to be concise about it. However, people have used the 'you have to threaten' argument to say that if you do not threaten you cannot use Bodyguard. Each time they have to be shown that Aid Another does not require threatening. It requires the ability to make a melee attack and although that is mostly the same it is a significant difference.
Blackstorm, I appreciate your trying to be concise about it. However, people have used the 'you have to threaten' argument to say that if you do not threaten you cannot use Bodyguard. Each time they have to be shown that Aid Another does not require threatening. It requires the ability to make a melee attack and although that is mostly the same it is a significant difference.
Right. Didn't think that way.... totally good point for you, I'll try to remember that in future posts :-)
Well if it's clear but bad, maybe it shouldn't be FAQ'ed but errata-ed or changed to include the change in requirement for threatening the attacker.
Why it's bad?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I got this feat as part of a Cavalier archetype last week in our WotR game. I posted earlier in this thread that you must meet both criteria, and as per RAW, I think what I posted is still correct.
I must say however, if you follow strict RAW, this feat is terrible. I couldn't use it at all last week. There was never a situation in which I could meet both criteria. Not because the GM was purposefully avoiding me, or because I wasn't setting myself up properly. It just so worked out that way.
I'm hoping this feat gets errata'd for the better. As it stands right now, this feat is only worth taking if you focus an entire build around it, and won't be effective until you get every feat and item necessary.
|
|
The RAW for Bodyguard can legitimately be interpreted either way. There are threads (links available upon request) where people argue the RAW of both interpretations quite well. Let's all just interpret it the not-lame way and be done with it. This leaves Bodyguard as a decent, but certainly not overpowered, feat. Considering the near unanimity about how it ought to be, and the ambiguity of the RAW, let's just do it that way. Martials should get nice things.
|
|
I wish it were that simple. When my Pre-errata crane wing monk was still playable, I had gotten to enjoy several games where he could aid from the back. Then I began playing with a gm who stated that I had to aid while adjacent to both my allies and the enemies. So for the last six levels of play I have gotten use out of the feat but through very little action of my own. My teammates had to move to me. It is a difficult feat to use well in pfs under that interpretation but it is doable. I would like to see some clarification in an FAQ. That would be nice in case I ever remade the character or they make crane wing usable. Bodyguard is a very (potentially) thematic and fun feat.
I've clicked the FAQ button. Maybe there will be an answer one day. In the meantime, if you're in a very RAW game you could consider getting a flying animal companion (or PC) to sit in the square over you using Bodyguard. I've got several "Birdyguard" builds in mind though I'm not sure if I'll ever really play them.
I really like the author's intent though, especially since it allows the feat to be used against ranged attacks. I agree with Gauss that the power of Bodyguard can be greatly enhanced by Benevolent armor. I think the Benevolent enchantment might be better balanced if it only granted half of the armor's bonus to Aid Another (so you'd need +4 armor for a +2 bonus)
Raw: Option 1.
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.
This is the rules text for making an Aid Another action in the CRB. This is the 'normal', default rule.
Aid another has descriptive text, eligibility text, procedural text, and benefits text. Well, also compatibility text. Each of these has a function in explaining the Aid Another action.
Descriptive text: "In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent."
Eligibility Text: "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."
Procedural Text: "You make an attack roll against AC 10."
Benefits Text: "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."
Compatibility text: "Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack."
Notice each comes self contained within a sentence. Also note that the eligibility text wants you to be in range to melee attack so that you can use a standard action for using Aid Another. If [can melee attack] then [can use standard to aid another].
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.
This is the feat Bodyguard's text. It modifies the Aid Another action. It contains text which adds alternate eligibility text, and has text which restricts the benefits options when using this alternate eligibility.
Added eligibility: "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."
Extra restriction to benefits: "You may not use the aid another action to improve your ally’s attack roll with this attack."
The Bodyguard feat literally gives us an alternate method to be eligible for and activate Aid Another (for AC).
To apply the exact raw... you end up with this:
Your swift strikes ward off enemies attacking nearby allies. 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 make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent’s attack. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.