If I was wielding a ranged weapon (bow, gun, sling etc.), can I use the Bodyguard feat? There was ruling about how you don't need to be threatening the opponent with your weapon as per normal aid another rules, but what about this?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To my knowledge there has been no ruling, could you cite the ruling?
Either
A) you do need to threaten as per the normal Aid Another rules at which point a ranged weapon does not help.
B) you do not need the threaten as per the normal Aid Another rules at which point it doesn't matter what, if any, weapon is in your hands. All you need to do is be adjacent to your buddy and have an attack of opportunity available.
Aid Another is clear, it works in melee combat only.
Aid Another is clear, it works in melee combat only.
^ This ^
But if you have a lenient DM and you have the Snap Shot line of feats, I don't see why you couldn't house rule firing an arrow to interfere with the enemy's attack -- as long as it was in the range of your Snap Shot threatened area.
shadowkras and AerynTahlro, the issue is not aid another but Bodyguard.
There are two schools of thought.
One school is that bodyguard follows the Aid Another rules.
The other school is that you do not need to follow the Aid Another rule regarding being able to perform a melee attack against the enemy. That school of thought believes that Bodyguard overrides the need to be able to make a melee attack against the enemy with the statement that you need to be adjacent to your ally.
To my knowledge there has been no ruling regarding this but the author of the Bodyguard feat has stated that his intent is B while the RAW is A.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
shadowkras and AerynTahlro, the issue is not aid another but Bodyguard.
There are two schools of thought.
One school is that bodyguard follows the Aid Another rules.
The other school is that you do not need to follow the Aid Another rule regarding being able to perform a melee attack against the enemy. That school of thought believes that Bodyguard overrides the need to be able to make a melee attack against the enemy with the statement that you need to be adjacent to your ally.
To my knowledge there has been no ruling regarding this but the author of the Bodyguard feat has stated that his intent is B while the RAW is A.
Which is unfortunate. Thematically, I feel that you should be able to swing your weapon or shield at whatever threat is coming your friends way. Whether it be an arrow, javelin, tooth, or claw.
I got this feat for free as part of my Cavalier archetype, and thought it'd be a lot cooler than it is. As per RAW, I've only gotten to use it once. And the attack still hit my ally.
I have a cleric build that uses a reach weapon and bodyguard. It works quite well.
The cleric stands behind the melee guy (preferably with the cleric enlarged) and even using the RAW interpretation I can use Bodyguard against anyone within 10 feet (20 enlarged) that attacks an adjacent ally.
Replace;
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.
With;
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.
The first is the default method to activate Aid Another, the second one is the method of activation granted by Bodyguard.
You can use bodyguard while using a ranged weapon, or even unarmed. You only need be adjacent to your ally when they are attacked, and have an AoO use to burn. If you are remotely capable of making an attack roll of any kind vs AC 10, then you can aid them for AC.
Remy, unfortunately even the author stated that while his intent was as you stated the actual RAW is not.
Remy, unfortunately even the author stated that while his intent was as you stated the actual RAW is not.
But it is RAW.
"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."
That line is the line that tells us how to qualify for using Aid Another, normally.
Read it. Read it again critically.
What is that sentence actually saying? Don't just gloss over it for keywords... actually process the entire sentence.
If you can melee, then you can standard action.
But we aren't standard action-ing. Not with Bodyguard. We are AoO-ing. So we don't need to meet the requirements for the standard action. Because we aren't using a standard action.
Remy, you are trying to state that Bodyguard replaces the other Aid Another criteria without it stating that it does. Because it does not state that it replaces the melee attack criteria it does not replace it.
Frankly, I would be happy if it worked as he intended it to work, but since it doesn't in games where it is not house-ruled to the RAI I have to abide by the RAW which DOES NOT replace anything but the Standard mechanic with an AoO mechanic.
If you can show anywhere where Bodyguard states to replace the Aid Another mechanic of requiring you to be able to make a melee attack I would like to see it.
Bodyguard says: 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 have an independent trigger here, complete and whole unto itself.
We do not need to use a standard action to use Aid Another if we have Bodyguard. Do not need a standard action. No standard action is required.
Therefore, we do not need: 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.
That sentence is the requirement to use aid another as a standard action. We do not use a standard action with bodyguard, so this line is not relevant.
Nowhere in that does it state that you do not need to follow the Aid Another action criteria. The trigger does not in any way state that you can avoid the requirements of Aid Another. I really wish it did.
You keep discussing Standard action, I am not discussing the standard action. I am discussing the melee attack requirement. The standard action being replaced by the AoO is clear.
You seem to like word replacement so lets replace this in Aid Another:
"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 an Attack of Opportunity if you have the Bodyguard feat."
See that works too. We can make word replacement say just about anything.
Replacing the standard action with an AoO does not in any way invalidate the rest of that sentence. Since it is not invalidated it is still a requirement to use Aid Another and thus Bodyguard since Bodyguard did not include any language that negates the other Aid Another requirements.
Again, I wish it were otherwise but even the Jason Nelson (the author) came to this conclusion.
I keep discussing the Standard action, because the "in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat" is the requirement for "attempt to aid your friend as a standard action".
But we do not "attempt to aid your friend as a standard action". We "use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another ", so we do not need to meet the requirement for the standard action. Instead, we need to meet the requirement for "use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another "... which is "an adjacent ally is attacked".
I'm not sure it matters what other people think, the words are rather straightforward. By RAW, you do not need to be adjacent to the enemy for the Aid Another with Bodyguard, because it doesn't use a standard action.
The requirement that people keep discussing isn’t applicable, because it only applies to exactly what it says it applies by RAW… it only applies to attempting to aid your friend as a standard action, which we are not doing.
So, what other people think doesn't matter? If the Devs came in and told you it wouldn't matter? If the author of the ability states how it works it doesn't matter?
Wow. I guess there is no point discussing anything with you because nobody's opinion matters (even yours?).
In any case, you and I disagree on the interpretation. You seem to believe that by replacing the standard action with an Attack of Opportunity the entire sentence is replaced. However, there is no provision for that and even the author states it is not the case.
Like I have said repeatedly, I really wish it were the case but it isn't.
So, what other people think doesn't matter? If the Devs came in and told you it wouldn't matter? If the author of the ability states how it works it doesn't matter?
Wow. I guess there is no point discussing anything with you because nobody's opinion matters (even yours?).
In any case, you and I disagree on the interpretation. You seem to believe that by replacing the standard action with an Attack of Opportunity the entire sentence is replaced. However, there is no provision for that and even the author states it is not the case.
Like I have said repeatedly, I really wish it were the case but it isn't.
What people have to say, their opinion, does not matter in regard to the words on the pages. The words on the pages are the same regardless what you or I think. Nothing you I or even the Devs have to say changes the print found in the book.
The Devs can certainly redact, modify, errata the RAW, which then becomes the new RAW. Until that point, the words in print are the RAW.
The writer expressed his intent, so not only is it RAW, but RAI as well that you needn't be adjacent to the enemy.
The sentence is invalid, because that sentence applies only to what it says. What does it say? Standard action.
I'm not sure what it is about the sentence that catches people up, but it certainly seems to...
Requirement: If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat,
Option:you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action.
But we do not want that option. We are not using that option. And that requirement is only for that option.
Reworded with simple terms...
If you’re short, you can reach the ceiling with a ladder.
When you’re tall, you can use a stepstool to reach the ceiling.
Just because we reach the ceiling in the second line doesn’t mean we must be short. That is the ‘simple terms’ equivalent to the logic being used here. And it is wrong.
Your opinion is that the words on the pages mean something. Thus, it is your opinion.
Other people state that the words mean something else, that is their opinion.
Yet, you state to ignore all opinions? You have some interesting logic.
The English language is a fluid language and you are trying to treat it as a precise language. It is not precise and the Pathfinder writers do not treat it as such. In order to save space they take shortcuts all the time and hope we understand the meaning.
Pathfinder concept: if it does not state it replaces a rule, it does not replace it.
Bodyguard: replaces the Standard action with an Attack of Opportunity. It does not state that it replaces the Melee attack requirement.
The Bodyguard feat is clearly substituting an Attack of Opportunity for the normal Standard action of Aid Another. It states this by stating to use an AoO and then stating that normally an Aid Another is a standard action.
Regarding the writer stating his intent and that makes it RAW (you are correct it is his RAI but that is not necessarily the Paizo developer's RAI) how do you reconcile that with his own statement that his intent is NOT RAW?
It is RAW because it is the rules as they are written. It is RAI because the writer has expressed how his intended rule was to be used.
For the last time... the melee attack requirement is explicitly for the standard action.
It you pay $50 for a glass of champagne, you can drink it with a crystal flute.
When you pay $10 for a glass of champagne, you get a glass flute to drink it from.
You are drinking it from a glass flute. Which requirement did you meet?
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.
If you are not "attempting to aid your friend as a standard action" then you do not need to "be in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat".
If you are not "drinking from a crystal flute" you do not need to "pay $50 for a glass of champagne".
If A then B.
When C then D.
You cannot get from there to: If D then A. Or even: If A then D.
There isn't any way to read what is written and conclude that the Bodyguard AoO Aid Another requires being able to attack the enemy. Unless some flaw enters into the reading, or recollection, or implementation of the RAW.
Why do you insist on insulting people (including the writer of the feat)?
Yes, there is a way to read what is written and conclude that. It does not require a flaw entering into the reading. It requires knowledge that in the game called Pathfinder if a rule is changed it requires a statement to change it. This rule was changed. The change is that an AoO is replacing a Standard action. Nothing else is stated to change.
Bodyguard replaces the Standard Action with an Attack of Opportunity. That is what it changes. So we go in and substitute "Standard Action" with "Attack of Opportunity".
Now, if you can show anywhere where it states that something else is being substituted or changed, please show it. Even the writer stated his intent was to substitute "AoO" for "Standard action". The problem was that he didn't remember the melee attack element correctly. He stated this.
You keep harping on the wording without making the change to the wording that the feat states is changed and then reading it. Until you do I do not think there is any common ground here.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You [Remy] seem to believe that by replacing the standard action with an Attack of Opportunity the entire sentence is replaced. However, there is no provision for that and even the author states it is not the case.
I think you should point out that the Author's view of RAW does not match RAI and the RAW in his view is Remy is wrong. That you still need to maintain the requirements of making a melee attack against the opponent to help your ally.
Why do you insist on insulting people (including the writer of the feat)?
Yes, there is a way to read what is written and conclude that. It does not require a flaw entering into the reading. It requires knowledge that in the game called Pathfinder if a rule is changed it requires a statement to change it. This rule was changed. The change is that an AoO is replacing a Standard action. Nothing else is stated to change.
Bodyguard replaces the Standard Action with an Attack of Opportunity. That is what it changes. So we go in and substitute "Standard Action" with "Attack of Opportunity".
Now, if you can show anywhere where it states that something else is being substituted or changed, please show it. Even the writer stated his intent was to substitute "AoO" for "Standard action". The problem was that he didn't remember the melee attack element correctly. He stated this.
You keep harping on the wording without making the change to the wording that the feat states is changed and then reading it. Until you do I do not think there is any common ground here.
I'm not insulting anyone. But to read it as you have does require a flaw somewhere.
Bodyguard doesn't say to change any wording. That might be the flaw you and others are making. Bodyguard doesn't say to remove the words "standard action" and replace them with "Attack of opportunity". Thinking that it does, for whatever reason, could be the flaw.
What Bodyguard changes is the type of actions allowing you to make an Aid Another attempt, it gives a new option. It comes with specific requirements for when this alternate action type can be used, and restrictions for what it can be used for.
That is all it changes.
So you do not need to use a Standard Action for your Aid Another, you can instead use an Attack of Opportunity.
The melee requirement applies to the standard action aid another. You are not using that, instead opting for the option Bodyguard gives you... You are using an attack of opportunity aid another, and need to meet the requirement for that... being adjacent to your ally.
Sometimes reversing the clauses helps see what a sentence is saying. Does this help?
You can attempt to aid a friend as a standard action if you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging your friend in melee combat.
We are not attempting to aid our friend as a standard action.
You may use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve an adjacent ally’s AC when your ally is attacked.
We are using an attack of opportunity to do it.
I wrote out more examples, but really, it should be clear if you simply read the rules text again. Explaining it won't likely do much good at this point. People will either understand it or they will not.
James Risner, I did point that out. His response was that the Author is wrong.
He has also gone so far as to state that I am not reading it correctly and that I am not processing the entire sentence or that I have a flaw entering into my reading of it.
By extension, he is stating this of the author and anyone else who believes as the author does.
I find such hubris interesting and wonder if he realizes how many people he is insulting.
He seems to believe that his interpretation is the only possible one based on what he apparently believes to be his logical deconstruction of the language involved.
He continues to miss the point that Pathfinder is not based on that type of linguistic precision and that unless the rules state something works differently than normal (specific trumps general) then they do not.
We have a clear specific rule, the Standard action of Aid Another is replaced with the Attack of Opportunity mechanic.
Bodyguard even states that normal Aid Another is a Standard action after it states that you can use an Attack of Opportunity to perform an Aid Another action.
That is pretty standard for Pathfinder type language and it means that Y is replacing X. In this case AoO is replacing Standard action.
Anyhow, at this point he is wasting our time.
We have the author's comments and, while unfortunate, those comments back up the consensus that the current RAW is that you must be able to make a melee attack as written in Aid Another. However, I do houserule things in my own games to match the Authors stated intent.
You [Remy] seem to believe that by replacing the standard action with an Attack of Opportunity the entire sentence is replaced. However, there is no provision for that and even the author states it is not the case.I think you should point out that the Author's view of RAW does not match RAI and the RAW in his view is Remy is wrong. That you still need to maintain the requirements of making a melee attack against the opponent to help your ally.
He was doing a lot of hedging in that post, and fully admits to not being sure and that his post was completely unofficial. He was responding to the common at the time misreading of the feat. But he did tell us very clearly what his intention was.
I actually think that the author didn’t make a mistake either, and what he wrote makes perfect sense. And just so happens to also be his RAI… So, RAW and RAI together in harmony.
So, I’m not really sure what to tell you. If my RAW reading is exactly what the author has specifically stated is the RAI… maybe it just might be worth considering? Seems so.
For what it is worth… he seemed to think that the reason for RAW issues had to do with making actual AoOs. Which is not even a real issue. You can use a regular Aid Another while being completely unable to make AoOs… because you don’t need to threaten. So that whole thing is irrelevant.
You’re not actually making an AoO against the enemy who is attacking. They never provoked an AoO. You are instead using the aid another action as an AoO action type. Thus you needn’t meet the requirements for what you are not doing. (You are not using it as a standard action, the requirement for doing so being able to melee attack the enemy in question… you are not doing this, it doesn’t apply)
To my knowledge there has been no ruling regarding this but the author of the Bodyguard feat has stated that his intent is B while the RAW is A.
Then the feat needs a re-writing.
I also think it should work with ranged attacks, its based on the old bodyguard PrC and the image of the class was a bodyguad jumping in front of an arrow.There isn't any way to read what is written and conclude that the Bodyguard AoO Aid Another requires being able to attack the enemy. Unless some flaw enters into the reading, or recollection, or implementation of the RAW.
Hold on there, being able to attack no. Being in melee combat with the attacker, yes.
The way i RAI'ed it: He is causing an AoO when attacking your ally, but that AoO can only be used for Aid Another to increase his AC.
We have a clear specific rule, the Standard action of Aid Another is replaced with the Attack of Opportunity mechanic.
Bodyguard even states that normal Aid Another is a Standard action after it states that you can use an Attack of Opportunity to perform an Aid Another action.
That is pretty standard for Pathfinder type language and it means that Y is replacing X. In this case AoO is replacing Standard action.
Exactly.
And because we are not using a standard action... "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." ...does not apply to our not-standard action use of aid another.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
RAW issues had to do with making actual AoOs. Which is not even a real issue. You can use a regular Aid Another while being completely unable to make AoOs… because you don’t need to threaten. So that whole thing is irrelevant.
Nothing in anything says it is irrelevant except you. There isn't anything in the feat that suggest or proves you do not need to maintain all the rules of Aid Another other than the activation method.
So RAW isn't one true RAW. I'm willing to say you can read it your way, it isn't how I would read it and it isn't how the original author reads it. I take it you are unwilling to cede you might be wrong?
Aid other is still melee, no matter if its a standard/AoO or any other action. The feat allows you the ability to aid other as an AoO, with the prereq that you are adjacent to an ally. It still has to follow the aid other rules. The feat is an "if-then" feat, nothing more. You can't use range for aid. If you have a reach weapon and are adjacent to an ally that is being attacked, you can aid other, but there is a minus for attacking over someone, so would give the same minus, the number is so low it probable wouldn't' matter though.
Bound 20x to change this into a standard action vs AoE is really just about Remy wanting to use ranged bodyguard, and doesn't appear to see it any other way, no matter how many try and clarify it. And if it really matters that much, get you local GM to allow it in a homebrew.
RAW issues had to do with making actual AoOs. Which is not even a real issue. You can use a regular Aid Another while being completely unable to make AoOs… because you don’t need to threaten. So that whole thing is irrelevant.Nothing in anything says it is irrelevant except you. There isn't anything in the feat that suggest or proves you do not need to maintain all the rules of Aid Another other than the activation method.
So RAW isn't one true RAW. I'm willing to say you can read it your way, it isn't how I would read it and it isn't how the original author reads it. I take it you are unwilling to cede you might be wrong?
Lol... you started that quote mid a sentence...
And, didn't even address what I said...
So, fun.
Read what I said again and get back to me, lol.
Hint: I was talking about what the author said. He thought the RAW hang-up had to do with making an attack of opportunity against the enemy. You aren't doing that, not with the bodyguard feat. Why? They didn't 'provoke'. There is absolutely zero requirement to 'threaten' the enemy. Not in regular Aid Another rules. Not in Bodyguard. No threatening need take place to Aid Another, ever. So the author's RAW concerns were and are irrelevant.
You are correct in one aspect though, you do not need to use the activation method of the default Aid Another. You can safely ignore that. You aren't using it.
So just ignore this "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" bit and you are in line with the RAW.
Uhm. You seem confused.
To use bodyguard you need to be adjacent to your ally. I'm not sure what 'ranged bodyguard' you are talking about. There is no such thing. Nor do I 'want to use it', whatever it might be, if there were.
The only reason this matters to me at this point, is that I am in utter disbelief that people cannot understand what the sentence "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" means.
Shocked, actually. And I'm not sure why, even after explaining it, that people still cannot or will not comprehend its meaning. The whole thing is bizarre to me.
Even when I break down the very simple language of the Aid Another rules and the Bodyguard text… it just isn’t sinking in.
Take this example. Removed only the bits about action types and replaced with made up fluff, simply to demonstrate how language works.
Aid Another: 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 [By stabbing at the enemy and distracting them].
Bodyguard: When an adjacent ally is attacked, you may [shield them] to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s AC.
Now, if you use this example Bodyguard feat and you [shield them] so as to increase their AC, do you need to be able to melee the enemy? No. Why? Because that requirement, being able to melee the enemy, is the requirement for aiding them by stabbing at them and distracting them. Which you… are not doing.
The exact same sentence structure is in play with the actual rules. And… why so many people cannot read that sentence and follow along is just, weird. I have to assume there is some sort of cognitive dissonance going on, but I’m not sure why, or what is causing it. The whole thing is more than a little fascinating really.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Read what I said again and get back to me, lol.
ignore this "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" bit and you are in line with the RAW.
I've read every word you have written when you wrote it, I just don't agree with you.
You don't ignore the first part, you just modify the last part ("as a standard action") to say AoO.
Sorry, but the Bodyguard feat is pretty clear that the only thing it changes is the action type it requires. It even says it in the text; normally, Aid Another is a standard action. Bodyguard lets you use it as an attack of opportunity, which is triggered when an adjacent ally is attacked. It's pretty standard language used in most of their action types and examples - essentially, as you may or may not be aware, sentences can be used to convey multiple concepts and ideas. This is a concept called 'Conjunction', and you can find a wikipedia article discussing it here if you are unfamiliar with English grammar (highly confusing to non-native speakers, I think we are all aware!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_%28grammar%29 . Essentially, the sentence that is being quoted conveys multiple concepts, and it may be helpful to address this by pulling out the multiple concepts therein - 'You must be in a position to make a melee attack on an opponent', 'That opponent must be engaging a friend in melee combat', and 'you can attempt to aid that friend as a standard action', from the most repeated example.
Now, the bodyguard feat clearly states that you may use an attack of opportunity, instead of a standard action, by stating the Benefit and then contrasting it with the 'Normal:' section. So replace the final statement with 'you can attempt to aid that friend as an attack of opportunity'. The Benefit: section also adds additional stipulations - that it must be an adjacent ally that is being attacked, and that you may use it to improve your ally's AC and may not use it to improve your ally's attack roll. Again, only one original Aid Another requirement is explicitly called out as changing - the type of action required.
Also, Remy, it may help to realize that the cognitive dissonance is in fact your own. You appear to be reading more into the ability based on the title than is in the text of the rules following the title. Nowhere in the Bodyguard feat does it state or otherwise imply that you are actively shielding your allies in some defensive and non-threatening manner. It says, explicitly, that you are using the Aid Another Action. To quote the very first sentence of the Aid Another Action: "In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent." If you are using the Aid Another Action, you are, as you put it, always 'stabbing at them and distracting them'. Or slashing at them, bashing at them, menacing them in some way and distracting or interfering.
If you wish to shield your allies from attacks, I would recommend using an actual shield, and looking into the 'Covering Shield' feat in the APG. That may be more in line with what you're looking for.
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.
Let's break this down, piece by piece. I'll also make a quick note of the flavor text in that it says "Your swift strikes ward off..."
-When an adjacent ally is attacked: You must be adjacent to an ally who is being attacked.
-You may use an attack of opportunity: You are using one of your available AoO's for the round.
-To attempt the aid another 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.
-To improve your ally's AC: This is what you're using the aid another action for, instead of giving them a +2 to their next attack roll.
-You may not improve your ally's next attack roll with this attack: Read above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that we're hopefully clear on what Bodyguard allows you to do, let's look at the Aid Another action, with the broken down components of Bodyguard included.
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.
Uhm. You seem confused.
To use bodyguard you need to be adjacent to your ally. I'm not sure what 'ranged bodyguard' you are talking about. There is no such thing. Nor do I 'want to use it', whatever it might be, if there were.
The only reason this matters to me at this point, is that I am in utter disbelief that people cannot understand what the sentence "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" means.
Shocked, actually. And I'm not sure why, even after explaining it, that people still cannot or will not comprehend its meaning. The whole thing is bizarre to me.
Even when I break down the very simple language of the Aid Another rules and the Bodyguard text… it just isn’t sinking in.
Take this example. Removed only the bits about action types and replaced with made up fluff, simply to demonstrate how language works.
Aid Another: 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 [By stabbing at the enemy and distracting them].
Bodyguard: When an adjacent ally is attacked, you may [shield them] to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s AC.Now, if you use this example Bodyguard feat and you [shield them] so as to increase their AC, do you need to be able to melee the enemy? No. Why? Because that requirement, being able to melee the enemy, is the requirement for aiding them by stabbing at them and distracting them. Which you… are not doing.
The exact same sentence structure is in play with the actual rules. And… why so many people cannot read that sentence and follow along is just, weird. I have to assume there is some sort of cognitive dissonance going on, but I’m not sure why, or what is causing it. The whole thing is more than a little fascinating really.
Uhm.... You seem to be confused.
You seem to be under the impression that Bodyguard actually says you shield your allies. Allow me to prove you wrong.
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.
I'll retype the most important part here.
Your swift strikes ward off enemies attacking nearby allies.
One more time in case you missed it.
Your swift strikes ward off enemies attacking nearby allies.
Got it? There's no "Shield your ally" anywhere in this feat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, let's double check Aid Another, maybe that's where you're getting the idea of "shielding your ally?"
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.
Okay, let's pull out the important bit.
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent.
Ah, that's where it says shield your ally... Oh wait... No it doesn't
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent.
I suppose if you "infer" that interfering includes tossing a shield around, then you might be on to something here, but it doesn't. So you are not using RAW like you think you are.
Uhm. You seem confused.
To use bodyguard you need to be adjacent to your ally. I'm not sure what 'ranged bodyguard' you are talking about. There is no such thing. Nor do I 'want to use it', whatever it might be, if there were.
The only reason this matters to me at this point, is that I am in utter disbelief that people cannot understand what the sentence "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" means.
Shocked, actually. And I'm not sure why, even after explaining it, that people still cannot or will not comprehend its meaning. The whole thing is bizarre to me.
Even when I break down the very simple language of the Aid Another rules and the Bodyguard text… it just isn’t sinking in.
Take this example. Removed only the bits about action types and replaced with made up fluff, simply to demonstrate how language works.
Aid Another: 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 [By stabbing at the enemy and distracting them].
Bodyguard: When an adjacent ally is attacked, you may [shield them] to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s AC.Now, if you use this example Bodyguard feat and you [shield them] so as to increase their AC, do you need to be able to melee the enemy? No. Why? Because that requirement, being able to melee the enemy, is the requirement for aiding them by stabbing at them and distracting them. Which you… are not doing.
The exact same sentence structure is in play with the actual rules. And… why so many people cannot read that sentence and follow along is just, weird. I have to assume there is some sort of cognitive dissonance going on, but I’m not sure why, or what is causing it. The whole thing is more than a little fascinating really.
Uhm.... You seem to be confused.
You seem to be under the impression that Bodyguard actually says you shield your allies. Allow me to prove you wrong.
Hush child. Read the bolded.
Your entire rant is arguing against something I simply made up from whole cloth, and do not believe is the rules in any way. Not only that, but I clearly stated as such. It was an exercise in language, of which you clearly need more of.
Now that we're hopefully clear on what Bodyguard allows you to do, let's look at the Aid Another action, with the broken down components of Bodyguard included.
In melee combat, you can help a friend
attack ordefend 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 gainseither a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent ora +2 bonus to AC against that opponent'snextattack(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.
Fixed it for you.
You can use that modified 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 had it pretty close. Aside from general editing issues like leaving in extra "or"s and whatnot. There were a few key things you forgot to cross out.
Take this part "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"
That isn't even a sentence. The first part, all of that stuff before the comma... that is the condition for achieving the second part, all the stuff after the comma. That is how that kind of sentence would function.
Another example of how that kind of sentence functions, because this seems to be a difficult concept.
You are told:
If you do your homework, you get to watch tv for an hour.
Then, later:
If you clean your room, you get to watch tv for half an hour.
Does this mean that if you clean your room, you also need to do your homework to watch tv? No, no it doesn't.
The condition for watching tv for an hour was that you do your homework. If you are not planning to watch TV for an hour, you don't need to do your homework.
That is how these kinds of sentences work.
So again.
The condition is: If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat
And the result of achieving that condition is: you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action
If you do not intent to "attempt to aid your friend as a standard action", you do NOT need to meet the requirements for it. Because you aren't going to do it.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If you do not intent to "attempt to aid your friend as a standard action", you do NOT need to meet the requirements for it. Because you aren't going to do it.
You change it to "attempt to aid your friend as an attack of opportunity" now.
You can't change how the rules work without an explicit rule stating it needs to change in a way.
|
Another example of how that kind of sentence functions, because this seems to be a difficult concept.
You are told:
If you do your homework, you get to watch tv for an hour.Then, later:
If you clean your room, you get to watch tv for half an hour.Does this mean that if you clean your room, you also need to do your homework to watch tv? No, no it doesn't.
The condition for watching tv for an hour was that you do your homework. If you are not planning to watch TV for an hour, you don't need to do your homework.
Of course, by the time you are told to clean your room, you have already done your homework and watched an hour of TV, because the person who wanted your room clean was slow and you finished all but writing your name on your homework before you in fact got home, so if you clean your room you actually get to watch TV for an hour and a half.
If you do not intent to "attempt to aid your friend as a standard action", you do NOT need to meet the requirements for it. Because you aren't going to do it.You change it to "attempt to aid your friend as an attack of opportunity" now.
You can't change how the rules work without an explicit rule stating it needs to change in a way.
Uhm...
I bolded the issue you are having.
You are changing the rules. Then saying that you cannot change the rules.
There is something weird going on here. Either you are blind to the fact that you are adding a made up rule, or you are arguing disingenuously, or something.
Anyway…. Answer this question: Are you ‘attempting to aid your friend as a standard action’?
Yes? Cool, you can ‘If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat’.
No? Okay. Nothing to see here, move along.
Follow-up question: Are you ‘using an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s AC’?
Yes? Cool, you can ‘When an adjacent ally is attacked’.
No? Okay. Nothing to see here, move along.
Remy, you are right, there is something weird here and that weirdness appears to be your lack of comprehending how Pathfinder rules work. Many people are stating the same thing and you seem to be the one that is "either blind to the fact, arguing disingenuously, or something".
As we have been telling you, Pathfinder is based on specific exceptions. When a specific set of criteria occur Bodyguard allows you to use Aid Another but changes the activation cost from a Standard action to an Attack of Opportunity. It even points this out in the feat by stating that normally Aid Another is a Standard action.
Nothing in the feat states you can ignore any part of Aid Another except that the Standard action is now an Attack of Opportunity.
Many people (including the author) seem to see that except you, perhaps you may want to consider that the lack of understanding is yours.
Remy, you are right, there is something weird here and that weirdness appears to be your lack of comprehending how Pathfinder rules work. Many people are stating the same thing and you seem to be the one that is "either blind to the fact, arguing disingenuously, or something".
As we have been telling you, Pathfinder is based on specific exceptions. When a specific set of criteria occur Bodyguard allows you to use Aid Another but changes the activation cost from a Standard action to an Attack of Opportunity. It even points this out in the feat by stating that normally Aid Another is a Standard action.
Nothing in the feat states you can ignore any part of Aid Another except that the Standard action is now an Attack of Opportunity.
Everyone seems to see that except you, perhaps you may want to consider that the lack of understanding is yours.
I agree with all of this reasoning.
Nothing states that you ignore any part of Aid Another, except those parts of it that are specifically altered by the feat in question.
In the case of Bodyguard, it changes the type of action that is required. Therefore we are not using a standard action for Aid Another, and do not need to meet the requirements for performing said standard action. Because we are not performing a standard action.
That seems to be what many people cannot get their heads around... The "in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat" is the requirement for aiding as a standard action.
By RAW that is only the requirement for aiding as a standard action, and nothing anywhere says that requirement if for aiding in general, or aiding as a free action, or a move action or an AoO or anything at all in any way shape or form, except aiding as a standard action.
That is what the rules says.
And what you seem to not understand is that Standard is being replaced with Attack of Opportunity. Nothing else is being replaced (although an extra requirement in being adjacent to the ally is added). Thus, the sentence works fine as is with AoO in place of Standard action.
That is what the rules say. But, you are "either blind to the fact, arguing disingenuously, or something". :)
You are alone in your position and a number of people have voiced their opposition. While the RAW and author's RAI do not agree with each other even the author states that the RAW is that you need to be able to make a melee attack.
I figure anyone reading it will be able to make up their own mind until such a time as the Devs choose to FAQ it (or not). Continuing this discussion with you is...not productive. :)
And what you seem to not understand is that Standard is being replaced with Attack of Opportunity. Nothing else is being replaced (although an extra requirement in being adjacent to the ally is added). Thus, the sentence works fine as is with AoO in place of Standard action.
That is what the rules say. But, you are "either blind to the fact, arguing disingenuously, or something". :)
You are alone in your position and a number of people have voiced their opposition. While the RAW and author's RAI do not agree with each other even the author states that the RAW is that you need to be able to make a melee attack.
I figure anyone reading it will be able to make up their own mind until such a time as the Devs choose to FAQ it (or not). Continuing this discussion with you is...not productive. :)
All you are doing is demonstrating that you do not comprehend the sentence "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."
It tells us a desired goal, and the requirement for achieving this goal.
With bodyguard, we do not want to achieve that goal. Why do you insist on meeting the requirements for a goal you do not want?
We do not intend to aid a friend as a standard action. The requirements for doing so are irrelevent to us.
That is what the rules say.
You can houserule them otherwise all you like. But the words on the page are clear. To aid as a standard, you must be able to melee. To aid as an AoO with bodyguard, you need to be adjacent to your ally.
That is RAW.
This analogy can be best represented by comparing two methods of spellcasting.
Let's take the traditional spellcasting, and Quickened spellcasting. The former allows us to spend a Standard Action to cast a single spell, which provokes Attacks of Opportunity, meaning you must either Cast Defensively (and risk losing the spell) or take the attack, and if hit, also risk losing the spell, though in a different manner. The latter allows us to spend a Swift Action to cast a single spell, which is usually of lower level (or higher, depending on if using a rod or not). However, this does not provoke Attacks of Opportunity. How though? It's fundamentally no different than casting any other spell. Except there is RAW that specifically says it doesn't provoke.
The same concept applies here. You have two methods of Aid Another to AC. The traditional Aid Another, and the Bodyguard Aid Another. The former allows us to Aid Another as a Standard Action, improving either AC V.S. one attack, or an Attack Roll for 1 attack, requiring us to make attacks into both an enemy and ally in your melee reach. The latter allows us to Aid Another as an Attack of Opportunity, improving AC v.s. the attack being made against the ally adjacent to you. Since there is no specific RAW saying you don't need to threaten an enemy to Aid Another in this manner, you still need to fulfill that requirement to use the feat.
That being said, I say it's a dumb rule and goes against the intent of the feat, but them's the breaks.