| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Blundering Defense (Combat)
Your feverish and sometimes comical defensive techniques offer enough distraction to aid allies.
Prerequisites: Cautious Fighter, halfling.
Benefit: Whenever you fight defensively or use the total defense action, allies gain a luck bonus to AC and CMD equal to 1/2 the dodge bonus you gain from the action you are taking. Allies only gain this bonus while they are adjacent to you.
Alright, I already know I count as my own ally, but the last sentence is where I get thrown off. Normally I wouldn't think of myself as adjacent to myself, but a friend pointed out this.
With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.)
Okay, so I'd count as adjacent if I were an opponent since I'm within 5 feet of myself? After some digging (only evidence supporting this is presented at the moment) I found Divine Defender's Shared Defense which seems to imply that the paladin should be included at first. At least the language at 6th level is clear that the paladin *is* included.
Now evidence that doesn't support you being adjacent to yourself.
Dropping an item says that you can drop it into your space or an adjacent space. Tiny and smaller creatures can't reach into adjacent squares. And lastly splash weapons deal damage to the square they land in and all adjacent squares. All of these make a distinction between the current square and adjacent squares.
So paizo forums, would you say the RAW and RAI are for this feat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if this is one of the situations where you qualify as your own ally, you are not adjacent to yourself.
For the sake of this discussion let's assume you count as your ally. My question is what does adjacent mean? I see it used in to mean both within and next to, as I pointed out above.
With the Divine Defender the intent is clear that the paladin should count when the paladin first gains the Shared Defense ability. But, as for RAW it is unclear.
The line I quoted about opponents is the only place where the rules explicitly state what adjacent means, but is qualified to only opponents.
|
One of my monks is grabbing this feat. So let me clarify.
First: As has already been said, you are not adjacent to yourself.
Second: Definitely assume that you count as your own ally. Because it's true. This has been clarified by a developer.
Third: adjacent- Next to or adjoining. Connected by a shared face, opening or member.
This feat therefor can not be used on yourself. Sorry. :(
Someone with the Dimensional Agility feat chain could be adjacent to themselves...
So if I'm on a mount am I adjacent to my mount?
Finding some other things, for example would Focused Eidolon work with a Synthesist Summoner? Or would a Candle Lamp light the square that it's in?
Enemies in your square are explicitly considered adjacent to you.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
While the rules don't explicitly state that allies within 5 feet are also considered adjacent, it doesn't make a lot of sense that an enemy would be considered adjacent, while an ally in the exact same spot would not be.
I think if your square isn't adjacent to yourself you run into all sorts of issues. As pointed out with mounts, or with opponents and their special classification. On top of that there is this issue on the subject of threatened squares.
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
At issue here is whether or not you threaten your own square, an application would be if a tiny creature leaving your square provoked an attack of opportunity.
One of my monks is grabbing this feat. So let me clarify.
First: As has already been said, you are not adjacent to yourself.
Second: Definitely assume that you count as your own ally. Because it's true. This has been clarified by a developer.
Third: adjacent- Next to or adjoining. Connected by a shared face, opening or member.This feat therefor can not be used on yourself. Sorry. :(
Also, or adjoining; which means being at contact at some point or line. I would say that I am in contact with myself at some point.
The question is, is a parasite inhabiting your body considered adjacent?
You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible.
It helps if we see a little more of the quote. You don't always count as your own ally. In the rules an adjacent square is one beside the one you are in.
Semantically and in plain English it is impossible to be adjacent to yourself. You are a contiguous whole. You cannot adjoin yourself either. you can be in contact with yourself, but that is not entirely synonymous.
See my above post dragonhunterq, for the sake of this discussion we're assuming that you do count as your own ally.
As for plain English being the deciding factor on a rule, I need to point no further than the rule where you can count as your own ally. Which in plain English you never could.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if this is one of the situations where you qualify as your own ally, you are not adjacent to yourself.
What if you are beside yourself? :)
I would not consider a character to be adjacent to themself. They are themself, not adjacent. If a tiny creature was in the same square, that tiny creature would be adjacent to the medium creature. Likewise, if a tiny creature was in the 5' square next to a medium creature, they would still be adjacent.
|
If in this case you are considered to be your own ally And you consider that being in you square implicitly counts allies as being adjacent you you(because it works for enemies explicitly), Then yes, you do get your own Blundering Defense bonus.
Now that that is answered, lets see how much of the above is true.
- Are you adjacent to yourself:Maybe. On the one hand, the rules say that enemies within 5ft of yourself are considered adjacent, which might imply that allies within 5ft of you are adjacent to you, implying that allies within 5ft of you are adjacent to you. On the other hand, because the rules explicitly state that you are adjacent to enemies within 5ft of yourself and do not make such an exception for allies, allies in your square aren't adjacent to you.
- Are you considered your own ally in this case:Well, the rules say that you are unless doing so would be senseless or impossible. Which is entirely based off of the written fluff(IMO). So, GM discretion is advised...and...maybe?
Conclusion:Ask your GM, or the GM at each scenario if you are in PFS, and don't build your character around this bonus to yourself unless you know your GM will allow it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An interesting touchstone came up when some of us were discussing whether you are adjacent to your mount: Cleave:
If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach.
The argument for being considered adjacent to your mount was this: if your mount is not adjacent, it is not a valid target for cleave. Since most GMs thought that attacking the rider and then cleaving the mount was a viable tactic, the mount has to be considered adjacent.
So one the flip side:
If you are considered adjacent to yourself, then cleave can always be used to hit the same target twice. That certainly doesn't sound valid, so you can't be considered adjacent to yourself.
Horses, ponies, and riding dogs can serve readily as combat steeds. Mounts that do not possess combat training (see the Handle Animal skill) are frightened by combat. If you don't dismount, you must make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action to control such a mount. If you succeed, you can perform a standard action after the move action. If you fail, the move action becomes a full-round action, and you can't do anything else until your next turn.
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
A horse (not a pony) is a Large creature and thus takes up a space 10 feet (2 squares) across. For simplicity, assume that you share your mount's space during combat.
You are adjacent to your mount because creatures sharing a space are considered adjacent.
You are not adjacent to yourself because you are not sharing a space with yourself. You are merely in that space. You cannot be adjacent with reference to yourself because you are the reference point.
I would disagree that you are adjacent to a ridden mount based on wording for companion teamwork feats in the ACG.
"When you and your companion creature have this feat, your companion creature is adjacent to you or sharing your square, and you both threaten the same opponent,..."
Its not exclusive wording.
For a cavalier, they are usually riding their companion creature, so they are sharing spaces. The feat works for them.
For a druid, they are usually not riding their companion creature, so they would probably be adjacent.
The feat is being explicitly clear that is for both adjacent or space sharing. It does not mean that they are exclusive conditions. I still think that a mount both shares your space and is considered adjacent.
See my above post dragonhunterq, for the sake of this discussion we're assuming that you do count as your own ally.
As for plain English being the deciding factor on a rule, I need to point no further than the rule where you can count as your own ally. Which in plain English you never could.
Two paragraphs in my post, unrelated. First was the full relevant rule, which stands on it's own to show that you cannot use this feat as it is both impossible and nonsensical.
Second was to counter your attempts to twist the defintions of words to your own purpose.
If you are going to ignore part of the rules, or simply assume they don't apply, then this belongs in the houserules forum.
See my above post dragonhunterq, for the sake of this discussion we're assuming that you do count as your own ally.
As for plain English being the deciding factor on a rule, I need to point no further than the rule where you can count as your own ally. Which in plain English you never could.
Two paragraphs in my post, unrelated. First was the full relevant rule, which stands on it's own to show that you cannot use this feat as it is both impossible and nonsensical.
Second was to counter your attempts to twist the defintions of words to your own purpose.
If you are going to ignore part of the rules, or simply assume they don't apply, then this belongs in the houserules forum.
I'm not ignoring part of the rules... As I've pointed out numerous times the only place in the rules (to the best of my knowledge, and if there is something I've missed then this conversation might be moot) where adjacent is explicitly defined would include you as adjacent to yourself if it were speaking more plainly about creatures, objects, things. Beyond that it is left unspecified and there are places where assuming either case to be true would lead to nonsense.
Outside of this conversation is another topic that dawned on me last night.
You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible.
Do both mentions of the word "ally" need to pass this condition or is it if one passes then both pass, or if one fails both fail?
Whenever you fight defensively or use the total defense action, allies gain a luck bonus to AC and CMD equal to 1/2 the dodge bonus you gain from the action you are taking. Allies only gain this bonus while they are adjacent to you.
So, for the first sentence on its own (I'm blatantly taking this out of context for a moment) I think we would all agree would apply to yourself.
For the second sentence, as some of you have pointed out, could be considered nonsense and impossible. I think we could all agree that you shouldn't count as your own ally in this case of the word.
Taking that into consideration, is it wrong to apply the FAQ as such, and if so why?
To be clear the feat would read something like:
Whenever you fight defensively or use the total defense action, allies (which you are because in this context it makes sense) gain a luck bonus to AC and CMD equal to 1/2 the dodge bonus you gain from the action you are taking. Allies (which you aren't because in this context that makes no sense) only gain this bonus while they are adjacent to you.
As an aside, I just want to point out as a player and DM I recognize how absurd letting the user of Blundering Defense benefit from it is. That said, we've already ruled (before I even took this feat) that it doesn't work. I'm only posting this because I do feel like there is an edge case here that doesn't have a clear outcome.
|
|
"Whenever you fight defensively or use the total defense action, allies gain a luck bonus to AC and CMD equal to 1/2 the dodge bonus you gain from the action you are taking. Allies only gain this bonus while they are adjacent to you."
Maybe the designer should have put something like "all creatures adjacent to you that are friendly to you" receive the benefit, but ally could have been a space constraint or laziness of the writer.
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Posting this as a FAQ request:
Does the user of Blundering Defense get its benefits?
|
|
@Ssyvan There is no need to clarify the feat further. The reason why is simple; while these books are resource documents, they are not dictionaries. It is assumed that people understand and know the meanings of words that are not defined mechanically. If they had used the phrase 'next to' instead of adjacent, would we be having this discussion or posting an FAQ? Is it even reasonably fair to assu!e that the developers need to identify within the rules each word or phrase they use? Sure, there are edge cases where things require clarification like the word 'ally'. But adjacent has held its meaning just fine and making it more complicated than it is and putting up FAQ requests doesn't help. We could take the same tactic here and apply this sort of thinking to other things that, barring edge cases, need no clarification such as: Falling, sitting, standing, subject to, opponent, combatant, combat, based, performing, creatures.
The books (as I look over them) use a lot of specifically defined terms and how they relate to the game and playing it. Taken objectively, reading through feats or the combat section is already like skimming a series of dictionary entries as a surprisingly large portion of the words used are defined terminology within the game. However, some words are just not worth defining as they are largely irrelevant to functional game play and the rules of common sense and common knowledge are assumed to apply.
I'll be honest, though, I had difficulty finding words not defined.
And the answer is obvious: No, the user of Blundering Defense does not gain it's benefits because the user is not standing next to themselves.
Additional wording in the rules description to explain what the word used already means is not needed.
@DarkImmortal - There are really two issues here that I'm seeking clarification on. But, before I point those out I just want to express again, that I do think the intent of the feat is to apply to everyone adjacent explicitly excepting the user. My motivations for posting the FAQ request were simply that my group wasn't sure which way to go on this, but for now we've all agreed that it doesn't apply to the user.
Below are my questions, and my motivations for asking.
Question #1: Are you adjacent to yourself?
-Motivation 1: There is only one explicit definition of the word adjacent in the rule book. It states opponents within 5' of you are adjacent, but it is unclear if this is applied to allies as well.
-Motivation #2: The FAQ on ally including yourself. I wouldn't expect you to be your own ally, but considering that you are it isn't much of stretch to be adjacent to yourself.
Question #2: Do we evaluate "ally" at each instance or on the whole?
-Motivation 1: If we evaluate "ally" at each instance then Blundering Defense would read as follows:
Whenever you fight defensively or use the total defense action, you and your allies gain a luck bonus to AC and CMD equal to 1/2 the dodge bonus you gain from the action you are taking. Allies other than you only gain this bonus when they are within 5 feet of you.
Your thoughts on Question #1 are pretty clear, and while I happen to agree with you, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you can be adjacent to yourself considering an edge case like ally exists.
However, if Question #1's answer is you can't be adjacent to yourself then suddenly I wouldn't count as my own ally "because doing so would make no sense or be impossible." That presents Question #2. The word ally appears twice in Blundering Defense (three if you count the flavor text). Do we evaluate those two instances of ally independently? As written there is nothing to suggest that because you don't count as your own ally (again assuming Question #1's answer is no) in terms of adjacency, that you can't count as your own ally for gaining Blundering Defense's Luck bonus.
But adjacent has held its meaning just fine and making it more complicated than it is and putting up FAQ requests doesn't help.
Sorry, I wanted to deal with this point on its own. I just want to point out that I didn't FAQ request adjacency, I FAQ'd "Does the user of Blundering Defense get its benefits?" in an attempt to stay specific so that any ruling wouldn't add more language than needed. That way any ruling would only impact this feat, avoiding rule creep. So I disagree that I'm "making it more complicated" or that it doesn't help.
A search of the forums shows this question (and very similar variations) had(/have) come up a number of times in the past, so there is clearly something complicated about it that a specific ruling could help.
You are your own ally, but you are not adjacent. You can't be next to yourself in the literal sense. You can count as your own ally because many spells are worded that "allies in the area" which often includes yourself. This effect is "allies adjacent" which you are not.
I'm already pretty clear on the arguments for and against "adjacent to yourself." And while I've implied that I don't think you can be adjacent to yourself, let me state it. I don't think you can be adjacent to yourself.
Beside that you're ignoring my second question, which this interpretation begs. I'm curious what your and others thoughts are on this.
So you don't count as an adjacent ally even if this debate has left you beside yourself? ;)
I don't get the point of your question #2. Each instance or "on the whole"?
For reference: Benefit: Whenever you fight defensively or use the total defense action, allies gain a luck bonus to AC and CMD equal to 1/2 the dodge bonus you gain from the action you are taking. Allies only gain this bonus while they are adjacent to you.
Allies gain a bonus when you do something. Allies only get the bonus when they are adjacent to you.
I don't get what the confusion is.
The test for counting as your own ally is "You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible."
I am stating that I don't count as my own ally for the adjacent clause because it is impossible to be adjacent for myself. So the condition of only gaining the bonus while adjacent doesn't apply to me. That last statement would read "Allies other than you only gain this bonus while they are adjacent to you."
But, counting as my own ally makes sense for the benefit. So it would read "Whenever you fight defensively or use the total defense action, you and your allies gain a luck bonus to AC and CMD equal to 1/2 the dodge bonus you gain from the action you are taking"
I put the parts where I've applied the ally test in bold to make my question more clear.
You are restating the words. Allies gain a bonus when you do something. Allies only gain the benefit if they are adjacent to you.
Test 1) Are you an ally of yourself? Yes. We're good so far.
Test 2) Are you adjacent to yourself? No, you don't get the bonus.
Same test as an ally standing 10 feet away from you.
Test 1) Are they an ally? Yes.
Test 2) Are they adjacent? No.
You don't get to be your own ally for sentence 1 and not be your ally for sentence 2. You are your own ally for the purpose of the ability. You are not adjacent to yourself however, so you can't get the benefit.
The second question is irrelevant. to benefit from the power you must be both adjacent to yourself and an ally. While you can be counted as your own ally, failing the first condition renders the entire proposition moot. It is an AND qualifier, not OR.
But, as some have already pointed out you can't be your own ally in an impossible situation. Adjacent to yourself does sound pretty impossible, so why do I need to be adjacent to myself to benefit? Outside of that one condition everything else seems to work in benefit of the user.
You don't get to be your own ally for sentence 1 and not be your ally for sentence 2.
I don't see why I can't?
Allies gain a bonus when you do something. Allies only gain the benefit if they are adjacent to you.
In sentence one it applies a benefit to allies.
In sentence two it applies a condition to describe when allies benefit.The condition is an impossible situation for the user so they shouldn't count as an ally in that context, but otherwise should.
The second question is irrelevant. to benefit from the power you must be both adjacent to yourself and an ally. While you can be counted as your own ally, failing the first condition renders the entire proposition moot. It is an AND qualifier, not OR.But, as some have already pointed out you can't be your own ally in an impossible situation. Adjacent to yourself does sound pretty impossible, so why do I need to be adjacent to myself to benefit? Outside of that one condition everything else seems to work in benefit of the user.
If you aren't your ally because you can't be adjacent, then you aren't your ally to benefit either. You either are your ally for the ability, or you aren't. Not half of the ability.
The second question is irrelevant. to benefit from the power you must be both adjacent to yourself and an ally. While you can be counted as your own ally, failing the first condition renders the entire proposition moot. It is an AND qualifier, not OR.But, as some have already pointed out you can't be your own ally in an impossible situation. Adjacent to yourself does sound pretty impossible, so why do I need to be adjacent to myself to benefit? Outside of that one condition everything else seems to work in benefit of the user.
I've read enough of this, and I've whipped up an Arcane Duelist Scion of Humanity Aasimar with the Racial Heritage (Halfling) feat that takes this feat, Bodyguard, as well as some other synergizing feats, and I come down on the side where this feat does not apply to you. You must fulfill all of the requirements of the feat in order to receive the benefits. The same is true for even selecting a feat, for example, Bodyguard, a feat that could be used without the Combat Reflexes feat, but it is still a requirement to take that feat in the first place.
Additionally, consider the battle map where you calculate the positions of both the PCs and the bad guys, and treat it as a graphine sheet; at no point are you in 2 different coordinate paths at an interval in time (in this case, each turn in combat), and the ability only works on things that are both allies (specific nodes on the graph which are denoted in respect to the relationship between said nodes) that are corresponding points in the graph. Are you one of the nodes the ability affects? Yes, you are, unless it doesn't make sense in a realistic sense or the ability in question says otherwise. But are you on one of the corresponding points in the graph?
No, you are not, as the corresponding points in the graph will forever be the coordinates that are adjacent to your current position in the graph; they are not a set position that you can move into, they are a variant position based upon the coordinate your PC occupies.
The second question is irrelevant. to benefit from the power you must be both adjacent to yourself and an ally. While you can be counted as your own ally, failing the first condition renders the entire proposition moot. It is an AND qualifier, not OR.But, as some have already pointed out you can't be your own ally in an impossible situation. Adjacent to yourself does sound pretty impossible, so why do I need to be adjacent to myself to benefit? Outside of that one condition everything else seems to work in benefit of the user.
I've read enough of this, and I've whipped up an Arcane Duelist Scion of Humanity Aasimar with the Racial Heritage (Halfling) feat that takes this feat, Bodyguard, as well as some other synergizing feats, and I come down on the side where this feat does not apply to you. You must fulfill all of the requirements of the feat in order to receive the benefits. The same is true for even selecting a feat, for example, Bodyguard, a feat that could be used without the Combat Reflexes feat, but it is still a requirement to take that feat in the first place.
Additionally, consider the battle map where you calculate the positions of both the PCs and the bad guys, and treat it as a graphine sheet; at no point are you in 2 different coordinate paths at an interval in time (in this case, each turn in combat), and the ability only works on things that are both allies (specific nodes on the graph which are denoted in respect to the relationship between said nodes) that are corresponding points in the graph. Are you one of the nodes the ability affects? Yes, you are, unless it doesn't make sense in a realistic sense or the ability in question says otherwise. But are you on one of the corresponding points in the graph?
No, you are not, as the corresponding points in the graph will forever be the coordinates that are adjacent to your current position in the graph; they are not a set position that you can move into, they...
Even though an interpretation of the requirement might specifically exclude you?