Does the benefit of the Benevolent armor enchantment apply when using the Bodyguard feat?
"When the wearer of a suit of benevolent armor uses the aid another action to give an ally a bonus to AC against an opponent's next attack, he also adds the benevolent armor's enhancement bonus to the ally's AC."
"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."
We've been using this enchantment in our games, and it seems fairly powerful. I thought that it might not work because we're using an AoO to grant the AC bonus rather than using "the aid another action". However, the Bodyguard feat clearly says that you "attempt the aid another action". What I'm left questioning is whether you are giving an ally a bonus to AC against an opponent's next attack. Since you're attempting to stop an incoming blow is it the "next attack" or the "current attack"?
I know that this is getting really specific with the semantics of these rules, but I'd hate to feel like we're "cheating" somehow and using the enchantment for something unintended. I'd like to clarify whether this should work or not so that we don't get another 6 months into the campaign and then have Paizo rule that it doesn't work, possibly causing some sort of hard feelings for the players who suddenly lose their favored tactic or the DMs who watched their BBEG miss because of AC bonuses which "shouldn't have been there".
Benevolent applies when you use the aid another action. Bodyguard lets you use the aid another action as an AoO.
I don't see the confusion there.
And as for the "incoming attack" bit, it hasn't hit yet by the definition of "incoming", so it'd logically be the next attack.
You may use the combination, it's ok rules- and power-wise.
You essentially use it like sn immediate action, i.e. assist against the attack happening right then, not the one afterwards.
It's a cool defensive option to assist your party :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, before we proceed, let's look at the Aid Another rules.
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.
Aid Another works in that it protects against a single attack by RAW. The Benevolent property increases the amount given by your Aid Another equal to the enhancement property. The Bodyguard feat allows you to Aid Another to AC as an Attack of Opportunity.
It was also clarified in a FAQ that you can use the Bodyguard feat without the pre-requisites normally needed to use the Aid Another AC action (adjacent to both the attacker and attackee). You only need to be adjacent to the person being attacked.
"Oh noes, my squishy/friendly melee who is not so tanky is getting beat on! That's okay, I'll just plop on +3-7 AC against those hits. Oh, he gets multiple attacks? Combat Reflexes and you're good to go."
Best tank/offtank feat ever.
Benevolent is one of those weird enchantments. It almost never comes into use for most characters - but for those who make use of it, it's good. Really. Really good.
If you're concerned about how it balances out at your table, you can always just rule that Benevolent is a regular +1 Bonus enchantment, rather than a flat +2000 GP.
I think it's cool to have this ability in the game. Usually offense is much stronger and defenses in PF are lacking.
This is a very good way for a character to be of real value to a party even when he/she is not a martial with a high BAB :-)
Pathfinder Chronicler looks really good with that feat and a +5 enhancement armor - +9 to AC is nothing to sneez at ;-P
Slightly on topic.
Does the pc with Bodyguard need to be adjacent to both the ally and the foe?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slightly on topic.
Does the pc with Bodyguard need to be adjacent to both the ally and the foe?
Just his ally. He doesn't even need to be threatening the enemy, as he's not actually attacking him, so much as just protecting the ally from an attack.
Slightly on topic.
Does the pc with Bodyguard need to be adjacent to both the ally and the foe?
Nope. Only for the Bodyguard feat though; any other form of Aid Another still requires you to be adjacent to the foe making the attack in order to do so.
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.
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.
Actually you need to be adjacent to the person you want to aid AND threaten the opponent you want to defend them against.
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.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.Actually you need to be adjacent to the person you want to aid AND threaten the opponent you want to defend them against.
That's how it works with a normal Aid Another.
Bodyguard is a special feat that works on the simple proxy of an ally being attacked for the character possessing the feat to use the Aid Another action expending as an Attack of Opportunity. That's all the character needs in order for them to Aid Another via the Feat. The normal Aid Another rules don't apply since Bodyguard does not follow the same standard rules as Aid Another.
I've found that using the two benevolent enchantments account for one of the two best methods of "tanking" in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. (The other is to apply a ridiculous number of debuffs to your opponent so it can't possibly hit you or your allies, and that one is a little less reliable, but helps kill stuff faster in many cases).
I have a cavalier player who is focused on using Bodyguard with benevolent items. It works well for him and I personally don't find his build any more powerful than the magus who is chucking +13 balls of win at people. :-P
That's how it works with a normal Aid Another.
Bodyguard is a special feat that works on the simple proxy of an ally being attacked for the character possessing the feat to use the Aid Another action expending as an Attack of Opportunity. That's all the character needs in order for them to Aid Another via the Feat. The normal Aid Another rules don't apply since Bodyguard does not follow the same standard rules as Aid Another.
What makes you think that it is any different from a 'normal' Aid Another action (other than the action required to perform it)? Note that the Normal: section of the Bodyguard feat only lists the action difference.
I can see your point of view, but if something says works as Blah Blah, you have to assume that it follows the same rules as Blah Blah unless the exception specifies otherwise.
For what it is worth, here is the author's intent.
- Gauss
That's how it works with a normal Aid Another.
Bodyguard is a special feat that works on the simple proxy of an ally being attacked for the character possessing the feat to use the Aid Another action expending as an Attack of Opportunity. That's all the character needs in order for them to Aid Another via the Feat. The normal Aid Another rules don't apply since Bodyguard does not follow the same standard rules as Aid Another.
What makes you think that it is any different from a 'normal' Aid Another action (other than the action required to perform it)? Note that the Normal: section of the Bodyguard feat only lists the action difference.
I can see your point of view, but if something says works as Blah Blah, you have to assume that it follows the same rules as Blah Blah unless the exception specifies otherwise.
The others quoted the intent and mechanic as to how the feat is supposed to work by the original author and JJ, which both say that only the person being aided must be adjacent for it to work. I knew they were around, but I didn't know what threads, so couldn't link. (Thanks guys for reference.)
Even so, RAW, Bodyguard doesn't follow the same rules or proxies that Aid Another follows, so it's a completely different mechanic.
Regrettably neither James or Jason are official errata sources, and I play PFS so intent doesn't really come into it. The top of that thread lists that it was 'Answered in the FAQ', but I just checked the APG FAQ and I can't find it. Can anyone provide a link?
It looks like folks seem pretty comfortable with the Benevolent enchantment working with Bodyguard. Thanks for your input. For what it's worth, I agree that you only need to be adjacent to the ally you're using Bodyguard on, not adjacent to or threatening the attacking enemy.
I can imagine some pretty effective builds using Benevolent armor with animal companions. For instance, a Huntmaster Cavalier in a game where Boon Companion is allowed could be a pretty great tank (plus I'd get to use the bad pun "Birdyguard")
Alexander Augunas - I don't think that the same character can generally wear more than one active suit of magic armor at a time. I suppose that maybe some tricks could be played with haramaki and armored kilts, but I'd guess that you should only get the benefit of Benevolent once per aid another attempt (though multiple allies who aid each other could potentially produce very high ACs via multiple aid another attempts)
Devilkiller, they work together legally, but having run a Bodyguard Cleric build I would never use the Benevolent property since it would OP the build. It shifts it from 'nice bonus' to 'I make the guy next to me unhittable'.
- Gauss
Devilkiller, they work together legally, but having run a Bodyguard Cleric build I would never use the Benevolent property since it would OP the build. It shifts it from 'nice bonus' to 'I make the guy next to me unhittable'.
- Gauss
To a point. In a case of relevant AC, giving a maximum of +7 would make any tank that was already only hittable by a critical still the same level of difficulty to hit according to RAW.
In the case of protecting a squishy person, it raises them to either that same level (in which case they weren't before) or on a level where they can be saved from attacks.
At any rate, since the Aid Another action only works for one skill/attack per use, it's only broken if the Dexterity from Combat Reflexes is there to cover the average party of 4 (take an average of approx. 5 attacks against per character, you'd need a +14 Dexterity or higher to cover all of them).
For our houserule (in that the bonuses from Aid Another apply to the whole round as it was in 3.X I believe), it definitely makes it very powerful since for my party, I'd only need a +5 (or so) Dexterity modifier (which with my +2 Dexterity, more than doable) to cover everyone.
I protected our fighter with this for a long while. When the enemies figured it out and targeted me instead, I used Crane Wing.
Went. to. town.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Major problem: If you are Bodyguarding everyone, then you're all standing in a nice little circle.
I would like you to meet my very best friends, fireball and black tentacles. I'm sure your party and them will get along splendidly.
|
Major problem: If you are Bodyguarding everyone, then you're all standing in a nice little circle.
I would like you to meet my very best friends, fireball and black tentacles. I'm sure your party and them will get along splendidly.
No,no,no, you got it wrong. It's black tentacles, stinking cloud, AND wall of fire. Then you drop fireballs. I did all of that but the fireballs once (and the wizard did have fireballs prepared, I didn't want it to be a overwhelming loss for the PCs though. Oh and I didn't extend them, which was another option)
Major problem: If you are Bodyguarding everyone, then you're all standing in a nice little circle.
I would like you to meet my very best friends, fireball and black tentacles. I'm sure your party and them will get along splendidly.
The Fireball can be countered with Resist/Protection from Energy. The Bonuses from Bodyguard apply to each of the Grapple attempts they make. In addition, Mass Freedom of Movement laughs at your Black Tentacles.
Honestly, it's like the Spartans and their Turtle/Bulwark stance formations all over again...
Darksol, it is my experience that many fighter types do not require a natural 20 to be hit. Isnt it generally people's experience that AC fails the higher you get in levels?
While yes, you can build a tank to be virtually unhittable such a tank isnt going to be dishing out the damage.
Personally, I think a pair of damage build fighters, one with reach (or archery), and both with Bodyguard and Benevolent armor would be an insane tag team. They can keep each other protected and would still dish out tremendous damage.
Alexander, you dont need to bodyguard everyone, just the guy up front taking the hits.
- Gauss
Darksol, it is my experience that many fighter types do not require a natural 20 to be hit. Isnt it generally people's experience that AC fails the higher you get in levels?
While yes, you can build a tank to be virtually unhittable such a tank isnt going to be dishing out the damage.
Personally, I think a pair of damage build fighters, one with reach (or archery), and both with Bodyguard and Benevolent armor would be an insane tag team. They can keep each other protected and would still dish out tremendous damage.
Alexander, you dont need to bodyguard everyone, just the guy up front taking the hits.
- Gauss
It is more the case with CMB/CMD than with AC as far as I can tell. You take a Fighter with a Heavy Shield as a focus for attacks and defense, and he is one very tough cookie to hit, even with a Full BAB, Max Strength character. Obviously AC isn't supposed to be fool-proof (which you made it seem out to be with the insane bonuses that Bodyguard can provide), but taking the Heavy Shield Fighter example, he excels extremely well at both AC and Damage to be a very effective tank (taking hits and dishing out enough to be a threat).
It's also fairly safe to say that those "fighter types" who can "hit the unhittable" also have very easy to hit AC since they are so focused with their offense they have neglected (a fair amount of) their defense, meaning the "big bad damager" can still be on a deathly threshold from the "unhittable yet seemingly non-threatening" tank.
Sword and Board build? How often do you actually see that anymore? Most of the fighter builds I ever see are 2handed builds.
With Bodyguard you can add between 2 and 9 AC to a player's AC. Considering that Sword and Board is a rather infrequent build anymore this is a major thing.
Your case is based on a specific build not benefiting from Bodyguard. My case is based on many builds benefiting.
- Gauss
Sword and Board build? How often do you actually see that anymore? Most of the fighter builds I ever see are 2handed builds.
With Bodyguard you can add between 2 and 9 AC to a player's AC. Considering that Sword and Board is a rather infrequent build anymore this is a major thing.
Your case is based on a specific build not benefiting from Bodyguard. My case is based on many builds benefiting.
- Gauss
Who said anything about a sword? Shields are both weapons and items of protection. You can two-hand a Heavy Shield, plus receive its AC bonuses. You can also use the shield for Bodyguard itself; saying it doesn't or can't benefit is silly (of course, you're Gauss and hardly silly, in which case please explain how it doesn't).
Also, where are you coming up with 9 total? There's the +2 Base and +5 Enhancement, but unless there's a trait or something I am missing, the max is 7, not 9. At best I can think up of the Defiant property applying to the Aid Another, which is both subjective to interpretation and quite questionable.
And honestly, Two-Handed Heavy Shield fighters have the best of both worlds; AC AND Damage. They're probably the most effective type of Fighter in the game in terms of melee; enough AC and defenses to tank, yet still the same level of attack power.
Plus, that Bodyguard only applies to a single attack. ONE. ATTACK. Many martials are making 5 or more by the endgame, and while some characters can easily come up with a +5 Dexterity by the absolute endgame, you can't Bodyguard yourself, and there are many enemies making those 5 or more attacks, meaning guess what? That (at absolute best) +13 Dexterity Modifier is only covering maybe 3 creatures out of how many the endgame can summon/encounters usually contain?
|
helpful trait. there are 2 of them. ones a halfling social trait that lets you aid for 4, the other is a combat trait that lets you aid for 3. there was a shadow lodge trait that let you aid for 3.
order of the Dragon lets you aid for higher than 2 numbers. battle Herald prestige class can let you and others add 1 or more to the amount you aid for.
in pfs I have a character that aids for 10, and a mount that aids for 9.
unless I spend a move action to make it 11 and 10
so 19 to 21 ac added.
protect the presents
It's actually a decent way to get the attention of opponents, with the idea of "You'll have to get through me first" behind it.
I tried it with a Cavalier, and the fellow players loved it. I actually felt like a bodyguard. Imagine that.
Thanks for the responses (:
Darksol, I was adding the Helpful trait which many people using a Bodyguard build will take if they can deal with the 'raised by halflings' part.
Yes, Bodyguard is one attack, and monsters are often built with a small number of very large attacks. Even if NPCs are attacking (and thus getting iteratives and probably Haste) this is still taking the best attacks off the top and turning them into misses. The second attacks are less likely to hit.
Now, if I am a bodyguard I will say to the GM, first attack? Yup! Second? Sure. Third, fourth and fifth? Naw, he has those I have blocked the worst.
And keep my remaining 4 AoOs for other attackers. Yes, that is 6 AoOs.
At level 1 I have a 14 dex at minimum while still having an 18 in something else (16+2). By level 16 I will have a 20 dex without too much trouble (17% of my wealth assuming a +6 belt of Str/Dex).
Now, lets instead say you have a pair of tag team brothers who both have Bodyguard. They both have decent to high Dex scores. Even if one of them is in front taking it all (say the one behind is an archer) they wont be touchable.
Lets assume level 16 again.
Fighter (no archetype) up front with a 2handed weapon (not a shield, that is a rare build, 2handed sword is much more common).
His AC at 16 should be: +5dex +14 Benevolent Plate, +3Deflection, +3Natural, +1Insight, +1 Luck = 37
+6Belt of Str/Dex = 90,000gp
+5 Sword = 50,000gp
Price tag? 214,650 with just over 100k to spare. He can easily afford that +5 Cloak of resistance, the Gloves of Dueling and a number of other items.
Now, the Fighter (no archetype) Archer behind him? Similar price but in his case his dex and strength are swapped (dex is 2 higher) and he probably has Mithral Plate for a slight reduction in available funds.
So where does that put us? Our Tag Team 2handed fighter has 37+7 (no traits) AC against 8 attacks and our Tag Team archer has 39+7 (no traits) AC against 6 attacks.
A quick check of Bestiary table 1-1 says that the average 'high attack' at CR26 is a +26. So that means our monster needs to roll an 11 (50/50) against the 2handed weapon part of the Tag Team brothers if they are not using Bodyguard. With Bodyguard that jumps up to a whopping 18. Tack on Helpful and you just made it natural 20s to hit.
What have they sacrificed? Two feats and that is all (the money spent on the dex part of the belt is money well spent regardless of Bodyguard since they can make use of it).
In short, that is why I don't like Benevolent + Bodyguard. It is way too cheap for what it does. It is based on the idea that a person using Benevolent is burning a standard action to do it.
Are there other build possibilities that may marginalize the Benevolent+Bodyguard combo? Possibly. Your own 2handed Shield build is one such possibility. But, that is a rare build that rivals this one rather than marginalizing it while the 2handed sword and archer builds are more common.
Do they have to stay adjacent to each other? Yes, but frankly, that hasn't been that big a problem other than the 'fireball' issue from what I have seen.
- Gauss
I had a feeling you would pull a numbers trick.
I suppose I'm too used to our GM making encounters difficult to notice how much easier the other forms of gameplay have it.
But at the same time, you're saying that the "fighter types do not require a natural 20 to hit". Taking the "average" +26 to hit from a CR 26? That's Wizard BAB at those CRs, and is lower than "average," if anything that's a complete joke.
If we're taking "fighter types" that "do not require a natural 20 to hit," they aren't going to have these piddly +26 to hit at 26 CR, that's more like CR 14 creatures.
Why not take a CR 20 Balor for example? He has wimpy +1 weapons and still manages +31 on his highest, and these are the minor guys. We take a CR 25 Balor Lord, and he's going to be having their "44-46" AC from Bodyguard seem like a complete joke. The sad part? They're still using +1 weapons. They're missing 4 Enhancement from their attacks, plus other very neat bonuses their weaponry should possess.
Also, it's not difficult to isolate and conquer "2 tag team brothers" with the powers any standard Balor possesses.
Even so, it's not gamebreaking. There are creatures who can bypass the AC these people utilize. Also, these AoOs used for Bodyguarding aren't being used to club people in the face; taking matters out of just attacks makes the Bodyguard seem not so worthy of being Godlike in its nature.
Alike with any other feat, Bodyguard has its place, and that's in physical combat. Magic, on the other hand...
|
|
I'm always torn between making a halfling cavalier tank with bodyguard on him and his mount, or a monk (raised by halflings) who's a dex based crane style tank who has bodyguard to help out as well.
I personally believe Bodyguard is a powerful feat that can work wonders if you can get it above +2.
Sidenote: If you go halfing Bodyguard tank, invest in the halfling fighting defensively feats from ARG. I had a build that around level 10 or so was giving mid teens to AC. Oh, and with challenge and a trip wolf mount he was an okay damage dealer as well. Hmm...now I need to give him blade of mercy/enforcer/cruel weapon to really screw enemies over.
Darksol, my own combats are harder than normal since my players usually bring stronger than average PCs to the table. However, for any rational discussion we must assume the baseline, which at CR16 is +26 to hit.
Bringing up a CR20 creature, 4 higher than CR16, does not further the discussion since it is not a reasonable baseline encounter.
However, if anything, you are proving my point. Since your original point was 'they need 20's to hit me anyhow' all of these creatures are pushing the required to hit number down, not up. At 37 AC your CR20 Balor would need 6's to hit. By bumping up the AC by 7 that reduces the Balor's chances of hitting by about half. (75% chance of hitting has turned into a 40% chance of hitting).
- Gauss
Name Violation, isnt a halfling usually raised by halflings? :D
- Gauss
Darksol, my own combats are harder than normal since my players usually bring stronger than average PCs to the table. However, for any rational discussion we must assume the baseline, which at CR16 is +26 to hit.
Bringing up a CR20 creature, 4 higher than CR16, does not further the discussion since it is not a reasonable baseline encounter.
However, if anything, you are proving my point. Since your original point was 'they need 20's to hit me anyhow' all of these creatures are pushing the required to hit number down, not up. At 37 AC your CR20 Balor would need 6's to hit. By bumping up the AC by 7 that reduces the Balor's chances of hitting by about half. (75% chance of hitting has turned into a 40% chance of hitting).
- Gauss
You said CR 26 has a +26 to hit. Thats where the disconnect is...
Whoops! That was supposed to be 16, not 26. There is no CR 26 entry in the Bestiary Table 1-1. Damned typos. Thanks for pointing that out Trogdar.
Darksol, please go back and reread and insert '16' when I accidentally said '26'. You may come up with a different result now. :)
- Gauss
Depending on timing and action needs you could also add in the Self Sacrifice trait to boost the AC further, as it seems to work for ranged and melee attacks.
Whoops! That was supposed to be 16, not 26. There is no CR 26 entry in the Bestiary Table 1-1. Damned typos. Thanks for pointing that out Trogdar.
Darksol, please go back and reread and insert '16' when I accidentally said '26'. You may come up with a different result now. :)
- Gauss
I was about to say...
At any rate, I'll still work with the Level 16's, it still doesn't change the factor of there being "fighter types" having only +26, seeming quite low in comparison.
There is always the Ancient Black Dragon who has a whopping +32 highest BAB (a tad higher than your everyday Balor) without a spell such as Heroism (bumping it to 34), or the usage of True Strike and the such.
In addition, he can easily outlast any silly "2 tag team" clowns with his at-will abilities alone, and the tag team clowns would have to sacrifice a lot of their AC in order to be effective against this enemy, meaning this "44-46" may be lowered by an average of 5, making the dragon's attacks much easier to affect them.
Dot for later.
Darksol, I think you are still missing the point. The point is not that a creature has an attack bonus that allows it to hit. The point is that with 2 feats and a small *extra* expenditure in armor I can shift the ratio of hits significantly in my favor.
Your original point was that if the creature needs 20's to hit what does it matter if the AC is higher? My point is that without benevolent+bodyguard, the creature hits a decent amount (or more) and WITH benevolent+bodyguard, the creature misses 35% of the time more than it did before.
That is a huge increase.
Can these creatures do something about it? Some can, some cannot. But that is not relevant. Why? because this is about Attacks and AC, not spells and magic defenses.
In the case of a +32 attack bonus the Dragon needs a 5+ to hit AC 37 without Benevolent+Bodyguard. With Benevolent+Bodyguard it needs a 12+. That is less than half the hits it had before.
Anyhow, we are way off topic. This was a rules question regarding if Benevolent works with Bodyguard and they do. Whether they *should* work together is something probably best discussed in another thread.
- Gauss
Agreed. It is a large increase, though it's not unbeatable, and thusly not overpowered (in other words, needing overkill to counter it).
Also, the Archer will need to pick up a feat or two to be able to threaten in melee with a ranged weapon.
I think we may be having different definitions of overpowered.
Overpowered to me = anything that is too much of a benefit for the price you pay. This certainly qualifies.
I do not consider the definition of overpowered to be 'needing overkill to counter it'. In my mind that is a possible result of having something that is overpowered, it is not the definition of it.
Why would the archer need to threaten? You only need to stand next to your ally.
- Gauss
I think we may be having different definitions of overpowered.
Overpowered to me = anything that is too much of a benefit for the price you pay. This certainly qualifies.
I do not consider the definition of overpowered to be 'needing overkill to counter it'. In my mind that is a possible result of having something that is overpowered, it is not the definition of it.
Why would the archer need to threaten? You only need to stand next to your ally.
- Gauss
I suppose, now that you mention it. I'm too used to the whole "Availability to AOO = Must Threaten Space Occupied," though I wonder how the character is going to be able to Aid AC when they can't really make attacks (in terms of intent, make attempts to deflect the incoming attack) in the square the ally occupies (requiring you to expend attacks of opportunity).
I can see Gauss's point to an extent, and perhaps that's part of why I started the thread. I don't feel like Benevolent armor +2 is "going too far" since there are several traits which can raise the +2 bonus to +3 or even +4. I'm running a PC with Bodyguard and the "Fools for Friends" trait in Second Darkness. That game is Core+APG only, so Benevolent isn't available, but the +3 I add to people's AC has made a fun difference in the game. The problem comes in deciding how much AC boost is "too much". Some DMs (including the one for Second Darkness) might feel that a +3 bonus is really pushing it. Others wouldn't mind a +7. Since multiple creatures can use Aid Another I could imagine the bonus going even higher though. A couple of PCs plus an animal companion or two all using Bodyguard to protect whoever the enemy attacks could add +21 AC, and I think most folks would agree that's "too much".
Since Bodyguard is different than the regular use of Aid Another maybe only one Bodyguard's efforts should count against a particular attack (overlapping rather than stacking bonuses). This would leave Bodyguard as a potentially powerful defensive ability while preventing creatures from teaming up to achieve extremely high AC. Do folks think that's reasonable? A good house rule? A possible errata? Just a dumb idea?
|
I can see Gauss's point to an extent, and perhaps that's part of why I started the thread. I don't feel like Benevolent armor +2 is "going too far" since there are several traits which can raise the +2 bonus to +3 or even +4. I'm running a PC with Bodyguard and the "Fools for Friends" trait in Second Darkness. That game is Core+APG only, so Benevolent isn't available, but the +3 I add to people's AC has made a fun difference in the game. The problem comes in deciding how much AC boost is "too much". Some DMs (including the one for Second Darkness) might feel that a +3 bonus is really pushing it. Others wouldn't mind a +7. Since multiple creatures can use Aid Another I could imagine the bonus going even higher though. A couple of PCs plus an animal companion or two all using Bodyguard to protect whoever the enemy attacks could add +21 AC, and I think most folks would agree that's "too much".
Since Bodyguard is different than the regular use of Aid Another maybe only one Bodyguard's efforts should count against a particular attack (overlapping rather than stacking bonuses). This would leave Bodyguard as a potentially powerful defensive ability while preventing creatures from teaming up to achieve extremely high AC. Do folks think that's reasonable? A good house rule? A possible errata? Just a dumb idea?
as a bodyguard who gives 21 ac (11 from me, 10 from pet), i dont like it
as a bodyguard who gives 21 ac (11 from me, 10 from pet), i dont like itI can see Gauss's point to an extent, and perhaps that's part of why I started the thread. I don't feel like Benevolent armor +2 is "going too far" since there are several traits which can raise the +2 bonus to +3 or even +4. I'm running a PC with Bodyguard and the "Fools for Friends" trait in Second Darkness. That game is Core+APG only, so Benevolent isn't available, but the +3 I add to people's AC has made a fun difference in the game. The problem comes in deciding how much AC boost is "too much". Some DMs (including the one for Second Darkness) might feel that a +3 bonus is really pushing it. Others wouldn't mind a +7. Since multiple creatures can use Aid Another I could imagine the bonus going even higher though. A couple of PCs plus an animal companion or two all using Bodyguard to protect whoever the enemy attacks could add +21 AC, and I think most folks would agree that's "too much".
Since Bodyguard is different than the regular use of Aid Another maybe only one Bodyguard's efforts should count against a particular attack (overlapping rather than stacking bonuses). This would leave Bodyguard as a potentially powerful defensive ability while preventing creatures from teaming up to achieve extremely high AC. Do folks think that's reasonable? A good house rule? A possible errata? Just a dumb idea?
I first thought he was wrong about stacking this bonus from two characters.
Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.
Unfortunately, this clause proves him right, though we houserule that clause to not exist (only 1 Aid allowed per applicable instance), since the inclusion of multiple Aid Anothers is ridiculous on its own.