| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
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
1) defender does not treaten emeny when enemy is using
....1A) a melee/natural weapon
....1B) a ranged weapon
....1C) a ray from a spell
2) defender is invisible does the defender become visible?
....2A) if becomes visible does this happen on an unsuccessful DC 10 roll?
Thanks.
You need to be able to use aid another for AC, which requires: "If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent...". It shouldn't matter whether the enemy is visible, as long as you are in position to make a melee attack. If you're actually flat-footed, then you can't make AoOs unless you have Combat Reflexes, but you must have it as a pre-req for this feat anyway, so you do.
|
This feat is a straight forward feat that most of my melee fighters and cavaliers live by. Due to Combat Reflexes I usually play it off as a "My spidey senses are tingling" and when the attack happens its a "reflex".
Remember though that it provides a bonus to their "Armor Class", as such it does nothing for Touch based attacks, only Flat Footed and Normal attacks.
Also, the AOO is labeled as an "Attack" of Opportunity. As such if they take their AOO to aid another's AC, they do become visible. While that part is a bit wobbly for me, that's how I have always played it.
|
|
Remember though that it provides a bonus to their "Armor Class", as such it does nothing for Touch based attacks, only Flat Footed and Normal attacks.
Aid another gives an 'untyped' bonus as far as I can tell, so surely it would be included for touch attacks? Unless I'm missing something in the rules, of course.
Remember though that it provides a bonus to their "Armor Class", as such it does nothing for Touch based attacks, only Flat Footed and Normal attacks.
Actually, it's an untyped bonus to Armor Class, not an armor bonus, so it should be a straight bonus to all types of Armor Class (including touch).
Also, the AOO is labeled as an "Attack" of Opportunity. As such if they take their AOO to aid another's AC, they do become visible. While that part is a bit wobbly for me, that's how I have always played it.
I agree with this, btw. Aid other (attack and AC) is explicitly listed as an "attack roll versus AC 10".
|
|
Actually, it's an untyped bonus to Armor Class, not an armor bonus, so it should be a straight bonus to all types of Armor Class (including touch).
Remember though that it provides a bonus to their "Armor Class", as such it does nothing for Touch based attacks, only Flat Footed and Normal attacks.
Ah thats good to know! Thanks for the update!
|
Ah thats good to know! Thanks for the update!Actually, it's an untyped bonus to Armor Class, not an armor bonus, so it should be a straight bonus to all types of Armor Class (including touch).
Remember though that it provides a bonus to their "Armor Class", as such it does nothing for Touch based attacks, only Flat Footed and Normal attacks.
I would think that it also applies to CMD, as well.
What about:
1) defender does not treaten emeny when enemy is using
....1A) a melee/natural weapon
....1B) a ranged weapon
....1C) a ray from a spell
???
If you don't threaten the enemy you can't use Bodyguard as per the Aid Another rules.
Really? That's awesome, can you provide a link perhaps? Wish I would have known this when I played my Cavalier!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you don't threaten the enemy you can't use Bodyguard as per the Aid Another rules.both the feat designer and james jacobs say you dont have to threaten the enemy with the bodyguard feat
That's nice, but since such a ruling would explicitly contradict clear rules, it would have to be in a FAQ to have any weight in PFS.
|
That's nice, but since such a ruling would explicitly contradict clear rules, it would have to be in a FAQ to have any weight in PFS.If you don't threaten the enemy you can't use Bodyguard as per the Aid Another rules.both the feat designer and james jacobs say you dont have to threaten the enemy with the bodyguard feat
And I think that's the "table variance" that the OP is looking to get resolved.
In my area, whether it was the JJ post or the author, we play that you need not be adjacent to the enemy to protect your ally.
I'm sure some areas go by RAW, and others go by RAI.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Funny thing about "RAI" - it stands for "rules as intended", but sometimes there can be more than one intent.
Suppose the author intended the feat to work a certain way, but it was intentionally made to work a different way by the development team. Whose intent do you go with?
Whose intent should you go with?
If there are two conflicting intents, and one got printed and the other didn't, which one is "RAI"?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no such thing as RAW, really.
Everything is RAI - "Rules As Interpreted".
;-)
Of course, there are other rules that do require interpretation. Whether it's intentionally left that way (see: charm person), or due to a corner case ("New option X lets me combine Y and Z in ways never possible before; what's the final result?"), or due to unclear or inconsistent wording (off-hand=?).
Thus, some rules questions truly do have one right answer (before applying houserules, of course) and it's simply a matter of finding/being aware of/properly extrapolating the relevant text. Other rules questions' only right answer is "the GM needs to decide", even in PFS. What the above-referenced mantra does is to try to pretend that all cases of the former are actually cases of the latter.
Of course the claim that all rules are matters of interpretation is stupid; you don't get different answers to "What is a wizard's hit die?" based on how different people interpret the text. No intelligent person can believe that all rules are matters of interpretation with no single right answer.
Therefore, what that mantra really means is "This rule is a matter of interpretation with no single right answer". Of course there are some rules about which that is a correct statement. Usually, though, I see that mantra used right after the speaker tried to convince someone that there is a right answer but then got their position refuted. But instead of either responding to the points presented or accepting the given conclusion, they suddenly switch from "Here's how it works" to "Well, it's a matter of interpretation".
Ultimately, the mantra of "There is only Rules-as-Interpreted" is a way for someone who can't defend their position to re-label their incorrectness as a difference of opinion. It represents someone passing up the opportunity to become correct in favor of being able to avoid whatever negative feelings they associate with having been wrong.
People who are comfortable with the idea of learning that they're wrong and changing their position to match the facts will never use the mantra of "There is only Rules-as-Interpreted".
|
|
Everything in the world is up to interpretation. There are no absolutes. Even math is "just a theory". If a wall is painted white, most people will interpret it to be white. But every once in a while you'll encounter someone who might interpret it to be off-white, grey, eggshell, or whatever. Perception is reality.
And, of course you know, the written language is absolutely up for interpretation. Why do you think there are so many sects of Christianity? They're all based off the same book, but each one has interpreted different passages so differently that they've created their own mini-religions!
Pathfinder is no different. You say that "There's no 'interpretation' for how many hit points you get at any given level", but I've encountered more than one person that had to ask because they didn't know how to interpret what was written. I still encounter people that describe their interpretation of how HP are handled differently to new players.
There may be a "more correct" way to interpret something, but sometimes nobody knows. And even the rules-as-intended can be up in the air. Hence why these threads spawn hundreds of posts arguing over what people interpret the rules to be. The rules that are rarely argued simply have a greater proportion of the population that interpret the rule the same way.
If you don't threaten the enemy you can't use Bodyguard as per the Aid Another rules.
What are you talking about? The Aid Another rules don't mention Bodyguard at all. However, Bodyguard explicitly says what it does and it makes no mention of threatening an enemy.
This is trying to make a square object fit in a round hole, even thought the object came with a nice square shaped carrying case when you bought it.
An invisible attacker may preclude Bodyguard however, since you can't make AoOs when flat footed.
** just a theory **
Also perception of color differs due to the deterioration of the eyes over time, the actual light waves coming off of that wall are the same regardless of the observer. SO you've based disproved your own statement that perception is reality. Reality is actually that which exists regardless of perception.
Simply being Invisible doesn't make your opponent flat-footed. FF is a special condition that applies only under a certain few feats and abilities, and before you act in combat.
Correct, which is why I said may. If your attacker is invisible, you likely don't know there is an attacker at all just yet.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gravity is "just a theory" as well ;-). No misuse.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you don't threaten the enemy you can't use Bodyguard as per the Aid Another rules.What are you talking about? The Aid Another rules don't mention Bodyguard at all. However, Bodyguard explicitly says what it does and it makes no mention of threatening an enemy.
Bodyguard says you can use Aid Another. Aid Another requires that you're in a position to make a melee attack against the enemy. What does that add up to?
If you don't threaten the enemy you can't use Bodyguard as per the Aid Another rules.What are you talking about? The Aid Another rules don't mention Bodyguard at all. However, Bodyguard explicitly says what it does and it makes no mention of threatening an enemy.
This is trying to make a square object fit in a round hole, even thought the object came with a nice square shaped carrying case when you bought it.
An invisible attacker may preclude Bodyguard however, since you can't make AoOs when flat footed.
Bodyguard states:
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.
Emphasis mine. So we get to use Aid Another as an AoO. How does Aid Another work?
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.
Bodyguard does not change the requirement that you must be in a position where you could make a melee attack on a foe. All it changes is that you can do so as an AoO instead of as a standard action.
Bodyguard says you can use Aid Another. Aid Another requires that you're in a position to make a melee attack against the enemy. What does that add up to?If you don't threaten the enemy you can't use Bodyguard as per the Aid Another rules.What are you talking about? The Aid Another rules don't mention Bodyguard at all. However, Bodyguard explicitly says what it does and it makes no mention of threatening an enemy.
This is specific overriding general. Bodyguard says that given these specific circumstances you CAN use aid another in a specific manner. It is adding to the Aid Another rules, not being beholden to them. Hence the square circle thing.
@Nefreet: I took a good bit of philosophy classes, but I also took science classes. And science doesn't care what philosophy thinks, and that doesn't change the definition of words like "theory" anyway. Discussions of whether or not you think you or your memories, etc, are "just theories" are irrelevant in discussing game rules, gravity, math, and just in general.
This is specific overriding general. Bodyguard says that given these specific circumstances you CAN use aid another in a specific manner. It is adding to the Aid Another rules, not being beholden to them. Hence the square circle thing.
Correct in that it is a specific vs general. However, normally it takes a standard action to perform the Aid Another action. The ONLY thing bodyguard changes is that it can now be done as an AoO instead of as a standard action - all other rules for Aid Another are still in effect.
Correct in that it is a specific vs general. However, normally it takes a standard action to perform the Aid Another action. The ONLY thing bodyguard changes is that it can now be done as an AoO instead of as a standard action - all other rules for Aid Another are still in effect.This is specific overriding general. Bodyguard says that given these specific circumstances you CAN use aid another in a specific manner. It is adding to the Aid Another rules, not being beholden to them. Hence the square circle thing.
Despite that being unnecessary, arbitrary, contradictory, and flying in the face of the "Word of God" from the feat writer.
Despite that being unnecessary, arbitrary, contradictory, and flying in the face of the "Word of God" from the feat writer.Correct in that it is a specific vs general. However, normally it takes a standard action to perform the Aid Another action. The ONLY thing bodyguard changes is that it can now be done as an AoO instead of as a standard action - all other rules for Aid Another are still in effect.This is specific overriding general. Bodyguard says that given these specific circumstances you CAN use aid another in a specific manner. It is adding to the Aid Another rules, not being beholden to them. Hence the square circle thing.
"In the face of the feat writer" I can give you.
Arbitrary? I'm arbitrary by reading nothing more nor less than what it actually says?
Unnecessary? How so? If a feat is meant to do something shouldn't it tell us what it does? Anything we add to that is just that - adding to it.
Contradictory? What part is contradictory? Aid another works as described. Bodyguard changes one aspect of that. There is no contradiction in the RAW.
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
There is contradiction in the feat writers intended purpose of the feat. A lesson for him/her to be more concise.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
So anyway, starting with a common assumption that it's possible to be objectively wrong about something; that is, that X can be the case and therefore any belief of non-X, no matter how commonly held, would then be incorrect.
Now, as to how this applies to Pathfinder rules.
First, there exist some areas of the rules where there is no right answer, no "X" compared to which all not-X is wrong. Sometimes this is because something was intentionally left up to GM discretion (such as exactly how charm person works), and sometimes it is because the rules simply don't cover a certain topic (perhaps due to a new book opening up something that wasn't a possibility when the CRB was written). In either case, it's "open to interpretation": you look at the most relevant text you can find, and it fails to indicate a specific answer, so whatever you decide on is the product of interpretation.
This I acknowledge, and happily accept.
Second, there exist some areas of the rules where there is a right answer and anything else is wrong, but the rules are poorly worded/organized such that it is impossible (or nearly so) to divine what that correct answer is. This is one of the main roles of FAQs; for instance, having an SLA either does or does not qualify for spellcasting prereqs (it can't be both). The CRB doesn't give us enough information to determine which one it is. Thus, people have to fill in the gap with their own interpretations of the most relevant text they can find, but might legitimately come to opposite conclusions. The FAQ can then tell us which one is correct (and technically it's always been correct, even if we didn't know it), but up to that point we can call that "up to interpretation" because we don't really know.
This I acknowledge, and accept.
Third, there are areas of the rules where it is the case both that there is only one right answer and also that the rules tell us (either directly or through basic logical extrapolation) what that one right answer is. For instance, no matter how many people mistakenly think that undead are immune to sneak attack, they are wrong, and the rules make this clear. Things that are completely clear are not "open to interpretation". Just because some people won't accept that Power Attack is a prerequisite for Cleave does not mean that it's unclear, ambiguous, or "open to interpretation". "Open to interpretation" implies "It could be X, it could by Y; we don't really know for sure". This is not always the case. "There's no such thing as Rules-as-Written" is ludicrous when a rule has a single, clear meaning and could not possibly mean anything else.
The mantra in question denies that this third situation exists at all, instead claiming that even the most basic and obvious rule is in either the first or second category. This mantra says that "Yeah, most people think Power Attack is a prerequisite for Cleave, but really it's open to interpretation". I reject this claim. Furthermore, I reject the notion that anyone could honestly believe it.
Since I believe no one actually thinks that literally every single rule could maybe mean one thing or another depending on how you interpret it, then I conclude that when someone uses the mantra in question, what they really mean is not so much that the third category of rules does not exist, but rather that whatever rule is being discussed at the time is in a category other than the third. That is, they're not really saying "Every rule is open to multiple interpretations" (because that would be stupid), but really they're saying "This rule is open to multiple interpretations". And sometimes (not always, but sometimes) that statement is not true.
Now consider for a moment if you and I were in disagreement as to how a rule worked. Suppose I explained my position, and you explained your (mutually-exclusive to mine) position while refuting my points. Now in an intelligent debate, I would need to either accept your conclusion or offer additional information/argumentation to refute it. Imagine if instead I said "I don't need to respond to your points; my view is every bit as valid as yours no matter what you or the rulebook say."
Now, in some cases (which I already mentioned early in this post), such a statement would be entirely valid. But I'd like to think you wouldn't accept such a statement from me if the question at hand were clearly defined in the rules. But that's what "It's all open to interpretation" says. It says "Well you have YOUR interpretation, but I have mine and it's just as valid" even when there is a singular, provable answer.
And as you've probably guessed, that bugs me. ;)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correct in that it is a specific vs general. However, normally it takes a standard action to perform the Aid Another action. The ONLY thing bodyguard changes is that it can now be done as an AoO instead of as a standard action - all other rules for Aid Another are still in effect.
Despite that being unnecessary, arbitrary, contradictory, and flying in the face of the "Word of God" from the feat writer.
Unnecessary -- Without the feat, you can't use Aid Another to help your ally'sAC except on your own turn, as a Standard Action. The feat allows you to do so when it's not your turn, in response to an action that you usually wouldn't get to respond to in the first place. In order to do that, the feat is necessary.
Arbitrary -- I'm not sure what you mean. That the restriction that normally applies to Aid Another is arbitrary.In the sense that it'sarule, and rules are arbitrations, and therefore arbitrary, yes.In terms of it being capricious, no. Imagine a huge giant standing in front of ten goblins, none of whom can reach the fighter in front of the giant. It makes sense to me that they need to be able to interfere with the attack somehow in order to provide an AC bonus to the giant.
Contradictory -- Contradicting what other rule?
Flying in the face of the word of the feat author -- This happens all the time. That's what developersdo; they take design submissions, polish them up, check loopholes, and make them work better with regards to the game system as a whole. Every single development change 'flies in the face of the author'.
Correct in that it is a specific vs general. However, normally it takes a standard action to perform the Aid Another action. The ONLY thing bodyguard changes is that it can now be done as an AoO instead of as a standard action - all other rules for Aid Another are still in effect.Despite that being unnecessary, arbitrary, contradictory, and flying in the face of the "Word of God" from the feat writer.Unnecessary -- Without the feat, you can't use Aid Another to help your ally'sAC except on your own turn, as a Standard Action. The feat allows you to do so when it's not your turn, in response to an action that you usually wouldn't get to respond to in the first place. In order to do that, the feat is necessary.
Arbitrary -- I'm not sure what you mean. That the restriction that normally applies to Aid Another is arbitrary.In the sense that it'sarule, and rules are arbitrations, and therefore arbitrary, yes.In terms of it being capricious, no. Imagine a huge giant standing in front of ten goblins, none of whom can reach the fighter in front of the giant. It makes sense to me that they need to be able to interfere with the attack somehow in order to provide an AC bonus to the giant.
Contradictory -- Contradicting what other rule?
Flying in the face of the word of the feat author -- This happens all the time. That's what developersdo; they take design submissions, polish them up, check loopholes, and make them work better with regards to the game system as a whole. Every single development change 'flies in the face of the author'.
Unnecessary: Not the feet. The shoe horning into existing Aid ANother Rules
Arbitrary: "Since it doesn't specifically say it is in addition to normal Aid Another usage, it is not, even though by the definition of its existence it is."
Contradictory: Personally deciding which parts can and cannot be considered specific vs general to fit your viewpoint.
FitfotA: Evidence of this occuring in this specific case?
It is not a matter of being concise if doing so would dictate doubling the word count of the feat with no added benefit. Which, based on the author's opinion, was the decision made here.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
That was wonderfully written.
I believe we're mostly on the same page, but for you the word "interpret" has a negative connotation. To me it means "perceive", or "understand".
When you find evidence for a case, you have to interpret what it means. I took a Philosophy of Science course years ago that really changed the way I look at evidence, arguments, theory, and interpretation. "Interpret" has some broad applications.
I interpret the rules to mean that Power Attack is a prerequisite for Cleave, for example. I don't use the word as an escape route out of a losing argument.
But, I also interpret Bodyguard as superceding the normal requirement of Aid Another to be adjacent to the attacker. And there are others in this thread that do as well. Regarding this we may be at an impass, since my interpretation won't sway you, nor yours me, until further evidence comes along, such as the issuance of a FAQ, or some hidden text we've both missed. Eventually either one of us will change our interpretation, or, barring no new evidence, we'll remain where we are.
I would appreciate an FAQ. Hopefully we get one.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
"Well you have YOUR interpretation, but I have mine and it's just as valid" even when there is a singular, provable answer.
This is the most common situation that happens. There isn't anything to do to fix it without a Dev swooping down to say "Blah is right".
The issue is that each person has a rule they believe is more important that is key to the interpretation.
Neither side wants to admit their "key rule" doesn't apply in this situation, so both side are firm on "the other is wrong and I've sufficiently proved my case."
I'm very much on the "side" of those in favor of allowing the use of Bodyguard without threatening the opponent (otherwise too easy to prevent by stepping away from the Bodyguard), and I do trust that both the author's intent and most likely the developer's intent was to allow this.
However, I do think the rule is clearly written to use the standard mechanic for combat Aid Another actions, and does not use the "Aid Another may be used for other things" rule. I think this because Bodyguard states you may attempt to Aid Another to add to AC, and cannot add to attack. This directly references the combat AA rules. Also, the "other things" rule does not have the requirement to achieve a DC 10 result in order to be effective, so there would be no need for the word "attempt".
I thoroughly believe this was missed in development, not intentional. Whether a hard look at all the consequences and wording will result in a developer thumbs-up or thumbs-down now is an open question. It could go both ways...
"Awesome" Example: Luke Skywalker attacks the Emperor, and Darth Vader (on the opposite side of the emperor from Luke) catches his lightsabre and blocks the attack.
"Silly" Example: A bunch of goblins with the Bodyguard feat stand behind a big old giant, 15' away from a fighter attack the front side of the giant and boost the giant's AC.
"Reasonable" Rule: You can use Bodyguard when you are adjacent to an ally, and threaten the part of their space that an attacker targets.
I'm very much on the "side" of those in favor of allowing the use of Bodyguard without threatening the opponent (otherwise too easy to prevent by stepping away from the Bodyguard), and I do trust that both the author's intent and most likely the developer's intent was to allow this.
Given how many (too many really) stacking ways they put out to increase the Bodyguard Aid Another bonus into the double digits, I'm not too sad if a thoughtful opponent can get out of reach and negate it (and I personally have a Bodyguard character in PFS, and I'm saying this despite that or perhaps because of it).
Given how many (too many really) stacking ways they put out to increase the Bodyguard Aid Another bonus into the double digits, ...
Double digits??? Yow. Most bonuses I've seen replace the bonus instead of adding. I'm happy with my Helpful +4, maybe Halfling Opportunist +5 later on.
The emphasis on interpretation is important (to me at least) because there is a very wide spectrum between "Crystal Clear rule" to "No way to know except to ask a Designer".
The darned Benevolent armor adds an amount equal to the armor's enhancement bonus and it is a flat cost, not even a +equivalent. And there's gloves that add your arcane strike bonus (and with the new "everyone gets arcane strike" FAQ...) and they stack. That's already going to be double digits on top of what you mentioned once you get the armor to +4 or so.
There's actually even more than that, but those two are a quick and simple way to get to super-high. If you have a mount that is also a Bodyguard, it gets more ridiculous.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
for you the word "interpret" has a negative connotation.
Uh, no. Reading what I wrote and concluding that "interpret" has negative connotations for me is like hearing me decline to violate my marriage vows with an affair and concluding that sex has negative connotations for me.
I spent entire paragraphs spelling out my belief that interpretation is a good and necessary thing that applies to two out of the three categories of rules questions I listed. It is only the abuse of interpretation (such as to re-label a provable error in order to not be "wrong") that I dislike.
To me it means "perceive", or "understand".
To me it means "to select one possible meaning of the data at hand".
When you find evidence for a case, you have to interpret what it means. I took a Philosophy of Science course years ago that really changed the way I look at evidence, arguments, theory, and interpretation. "Interpret" has some broad applications.
And in my psychology degree I learned the technical distinction between sensation and perception and what can go wrong between the two; but those field-specific distinctions aren't really relevant to the common usage of "interpret" as it applies to reading game rules.
I interpret the rules to mean that Power Attack is a prerequisite for Cleave, for example.
In the context of reading and understanding game rules, I contend that that's a pretty poor usage of the term "interpret". :/
I don't use the word as an escape route out of a losing argument.
It certainly looked like you did, given that you cited the aforementioned mantra in response to a point that you still haven't gone back and addressed.
Also, bear in mind that I'm not talking about all uses of the word "interpretation". I'm talking mainly about when someone uses it within a context of "there's no such thing as RAW". In normal everyday parlance—that is, without bringing in definitions that require training in philosophy or psychology to be familiar with—the claim that "there is no 'as written', only 'as interpreted'" means some very different things than you're talking about.
Yes, technically, within the field of philosophy, even reading "+2" and taking it to mean "increase a given value by two" is an "interpretation". But in any sense that is at all relevant to a bunch of gamers discussing rules, no, that is not an "interpretation". It is the one and only thing the written text means, and is exactly what is meant by the phrase "RAW" that the mantra in question pretends does not exist.
So the mantra "there's no rules as written, only rules as interpreted" is either completely stupid, or is (as you are perhaps suggesting?) changing the commonly-held definitions of "as written" and "as interpreted" into technicalities that make the mantra technically correct functionally meaningless and irrelevant to actual rules discussions.
Now, if we'd gone round and round, and zeroed in on the exact point at which our logic chains diverge, and determined together that the correct value of that data point could not be definitively determined (I've certainly been in that situation before), and then the other person came out with "interpretations lol", I'd just smile along with them. Interpretations, indeed. :)
But it always seems to come in response to a point never answered, which conveys an entirely different meaning.
| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Since the Original Post is a bit confusion, here's a potential FAQ question:
A) Only when adjacent to the ally and threatening the enemy.
B) When adjacent to the ally, and threatening the enemy or the square of the ally's space that is attacked (if larger than medium).
C) Whenever adjacent to the ally.
Example setups (A = Ally, B = Bodyguard, E = Enemy):
A)
ooE
oBA
ooo
B-1)
ooE
ooA
ooB
B-2) (large ally)
Eoo
oAA
BAA
C) (large ally)
ooE
oAA
oAA
ooB
Cleaned up the question language a bit (I hope).
I think the real confusion comes from the fact that Aid Another does not require you to be adjacent to the ally you give a bonus to (AC or Attack). It feels like Bodyguard is meant to substitute the requirement to threaten the enemy with the requirement to be adjacent.
To effect that substitution, the Normal entry could be rewritten:
"Normal: Aid another is a standard action, and requires you threaten the attacker."