Benefit: Whenever you are adjacent to an ally who also has this feat, you receive a +4 circumstance bonus on attacks of opportunity against creatures that you both threaten. Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity). This does not allow you to take more than one attack of opportunity against a creature for a given action.
The enemy did not provoke an AoO. Just because you used one via bodyguard does not mean the enemy performed an action which provokes.
(2) but you cannot combine it with 'Total Defense'
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.
Under the effect of 'Total Defense' you dont have AoO attempts.
You can't make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.
'Bodyguard' is very nice if you use a reach weapon. A caster can use it from the second line to assist the tanks that protect him.
Using total defense does not let you make AoO.
Bodyguard requires use of an AoO.
Don't nitpick between use/attack. When full defense was written there was no bodyguard feat.
Paired opportunist states that enemies who provoke an AoO from your ally also provoke an AoO from you.
Seize the moment allows you to take an AoO if your ally confirms a critical hit. This AoO is also not provoked by the enemy and would not qualify for paired opportunist.
Making an AoO does not equate to the enemy provoking an AoO.
An example that would work, is vicious stomp.
"Benefit: Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you. This attack must be an unarmed strike."
When an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, they provoke an AoO from you. This would let paired opportunist kick in.
Well either it is or isn't an attack or opportunity.
Total Defense doesn't say you don't have Attack of Opportunity attempts; it says you can't make Attacks of Opportunity. Your number of attempts are unchanged.
If your position is that the action described by Bodyguard isn't an attack of opportunity, then the clause in the Total Defense action is irrelevant.
Using and making an AoO are effectively the same meaning. Full defense does not let you make AoO. Bodyguard requires you use an AoO. If you can't make an AoO then you can't use an AoO therefore you can't Bodyguard while Full Defense.
I think the word "use" was made to show that you are not making an AoO and dealing damage per normal. Instead of taking an attack against the creature, you get to aid another using the same AoO count mechanic.
|
My intention with tying it to the AoO mechanic was simply to make it an ability you could use more than once per round, rather than wanting to tie it specifically to all the implied mechanics of AoOs.
That suggests definitively that the intent was (2) with all that implies.
There's also a plain RAW argument that just as using an AoO doesn't mean the attacker provoked an AoO, using an AoO doesn't require you to make an AoO. Normally I'd advise against nitpicking rules text since the devs aren't technical writers and aren't always consistent in their language use but since it lines up with the author's stated intent in this case that's enough for me as a home GM.
However, the author's post is not official, and since this is for PFS, play it safe and assume that Bodyguard is not usable with either.
|
Here's another poison pill suggesting it might be unwise to take the Bodyguard feat in PFS play. Most GMs seem to be solidly in the Option 2 camp, but expect some table variation. Any feat with 'some table variation' is risky to use in PFS ...
Here's another poison pill suggesting it might be unwise to take the Bodyguard feat in PFS play. Most GMs seem to be solidly in the Option 2 camp, but expect some table variation. Any feat with 'some table variation' is risky to use in PFS ...
I've always seen it as Aid Another to provide to AC. The requirements to do that is you have to threaten the enemy. I see it as getting your weapon in their way so they can't attack your buddy as effectively.
Since bodyguard allows you to do this as an immediate action instead of your normal standard action, I'm fine with the added requirement of "also be adjacent to your friend".
|
|
Bodyguard does not use an Immediate Action, instead it uses up an available AoO. Other than that, I agree with Tarantula. The problem is that the RAW is unclear, and can be interpreted either way (depending on how one prefers to parse the English language). Thus, expect table variation.
The (entirely unscientific) poll I linked to showed 85% of people choosing Option 2, but a solid 15% choosing Option 1. The Option 1 interpretation gimps the feat to be useless. Thus, expect table variation. In PFS play it's unwise to invest resources in anything that 'expects table variation'.
Sorry, meant use an AoO. :)
You must be adjacent to your ally because bodyguard says so. And you must threaten the enemy because to Aid Another you must threaten the creature you are providing an ally an AC bonus to. I don't get why there is any variation at all to be honest.
|
Sorry, meant use an AoO. :)
You must be adjacent to your ally because bodyguard says so. And you must threaten the enemy because to Aid Another you must threaten the creature you are providing an ally an AC bonus to. I don't get why there is any variation at all to be honest.
Well, JJ disagrees, so there's that.
Well, JJ disagrees, so there's that.Sorry, meant use an AoO. :)
You must be adjacent to your ally because bodyguard says so. And you must threaten the enemy because to Aid Another you must threaten the creature you are providing an ally an AC bonus to. I don't get why there is any variation at all to be honest.
Then they should fix the wording on the feat.
|
|
Then they should fix the wording on the feat.Well, JJ disagrees, so there's that.Sorry, meant use an AoO. :)
You must be adjacent to your ally because bodyguard says so. And you must threaten the enemy because to Aid Another you must threaten the creature you are providing an ally an AC bonus to. I don't get why there is any variation at all to be honest.
I'm sure that's very far toward the bottom of their monstrous "to-do" list. It's much easier for them to just say "Yeah this is how it's supposed to work: " than to spend millions on reprinting the book due to a tiny technicality in the wording.
|
Bodyguard does not use an Immediate Action, instead it uses up an available AoO. Other than that, I agree with Tarantula. The problem is that the RAW is unclear, and can be interpreted either way (depending on how one prefers to parse the English language). Thus, expect table variation.
The (entirely unscientific) poll I linked to showed 85% of people choosing Option 2, but a solid 15% choosing Option 1. The Option 1 interpretation gimps the feat to be useless. Thus, expect table variation. In PFS play it's unwise to invest resources in anything that 'expects table variation'.
Ummm... did you incorrectly quote yourself? Option 1 was that you only needed to be adjacent to your ally, whereas option 2 was that you had to be adjacent to your ally and the enemy. So, with those definitions:
19 votes towards option 14 votes towards option 2
As of the time of this posting
|
|
Note that most of the people who are certain of the RAW interpretation generally only see one RAW interpretation. It seems clear to me that both interpretations are legitimate RAW, it's a question of which legitimate & reasonable interpretation is used at a given table. Enough people are certain of Option 2, more than 10%, so expect table variation. This issue is probably very low on the Developer's agenda, so don't ever expect any sort of FAQ on this one.
Note that most of the people who are certain of the RAW interpretation generally only see one RAW interpretation. It seems clear to me that both interpretations are legitimate RAW, it's a question of which legitimate & reasonable interpretation is used at a given table. Enough people are certain of Option 2, more than 10%, so expect table variation. This issue is probably very low on the Developer's agenda, so don't ever expect any sort of FAQ on this one.
I see the reasoning behind option 1. But option 1 does not ever exempt the requirement that an AoO requires an enemy in your threatened space. Because of that, I think the RAW is clear that you must be adjacent to ally, and threaten the enemy for the feat as written to work.
I do agree with the RAI (since we have the writer of it) that threatening the target makes the feat overly less useful. It would make more sense to either have to be adjacent to, or have within your reach your ally instead. I do not think that the rules as written support this in their current form.
|
|
To throw real-world definitions and issues into the mix, I don't understand how a bodyguard standing behind a target can protect that person. The bodyguard needs to be able to interpose between the attacker and a target or there seems to be no way to defend the target.
So, I believe option 2 (must also threaten the attacker) is the correct one. Hiding behind the target, and going "I'll save you!" isn't going to do too much.
Standing next to the target (or behind and to the side with a reach weapon) allows the bodyguard to interfere with the attack.
Bodyguard seems designed for a warrior to protect someone without forcing that someone to the rear lines.
Except that if the enemy has reach, you can be next to your ally, able to interpose yourself for attacks, and still not threaten the attacker.
So, in this case it would 'make sense' to allow a bodyguard, even if you don't threaten the attacker, especially since this only improves the AC.
And yet, the base mechanic, Aid Another, which bodyguard uses, forces you to threaten the enemy in order to aid your friend with a +2ac. It makes perfect sense that bodyguard merely expands on this by letting you do it reactively with an AoO instead of proactively with your standard action.
As I said, I agree that the intent was to change the base requirements, the actual wording that was used does not do so. All that would be needed would be another sentence after the one you quoted stating, "You do not need to threaten the attacking creature to use this ability." and all would have been solved. He did not write that, and so as written, the ability requires you threaten.
|
Well, I doubt we're going to agree. I think even by RAW it works. Why? Normally you can't attempt to aid another if you can't attack the enemy. It's not an action that you can attempt.
The bodyguard feat explicitly says that you can attempt to aid another if you are adjacent to an ally that is attacked. Therefore, if you have the bodyguard feat, you are next to an ally, but can't attack an enemy, the feat _explicitly says_ that you can aid another. It changes the requirements, right in the language.
But it does not _explicitly_ say this. You added in the "but can't attack an enemy." The feat does not say this, and that is the entire problem. If it did it would be fine.
For my part, I prefer the RAI, and always allow it in my home games.
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.
That's what he quoted. He didn't add that line in anywhere. The feat says you can so you can, regardless if you're threatening the enemy or not. Normally you can aid a friend (regardless of whether or not you are adjacent to your ally) if you are threatening the enemy. Bodyguard changes it because it says you can do so "if you are adjacent to your ally then you can do so".
So the argument comes down to what is "attempt the aid another"? Is "attempt the aid another" just the benefit of aid another or is "attempt the aid another" the entirety of aid another?
The developers have come out and said it's just the benefit. Imo, regardless of whether it's in a FAQ or not, developer clarification on what a feat is supposed to do is RAW.
Well, I doubt we're going to agree. I think even by RAW it works. Why? Normally you can't attempt to aid another if you can't attack the enemy. It's not an action that you can attempt.
The bodyguard feat explicitly says that you can attempt to aid another if you are adjacent to an ally that is attacked. Therefore, if you have the bodyguard feat, you are next to an ally, but can't attack an enemy, the feat _explicitly says_ that you can aid another. It changes the requirements, right in the language.
It does say you can attempt to aid another. The requirements for "aid another" are threaten the creature that you are providing the AC bonus to. I think it merely grants you the use of the "aid another" action as an AoO instead of as a standard action. If it said, "you may use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s AC. You don't need to threaten the attacking creature to use this ability." all would be settled. But because there is nothing in the language to change aid another except for changing the action requirements, I think the threatening requirement stands.
I think the threatening requirement stands.I can understand that as worded it can be interpreted like that, but when the author of the feat has stated his intentions and a developer has said that it doesn't, how can you still say "I think the threatening requirement stands"?
Because stating their intentions doesn't change the wording that is written on the PRD and books. I would like if they would include it in the next errata for that book, so that the written words match the intention of the feat, but until that happens, as written, you have to threaten.
Normally, it takes a standard action to attempt aid another. If you wanted to aid another when it is not your turn, the DM would say, "No, you can't do it unless it is your turn."
Yes, the bodyguard feat says specifically, "you can attempt to aid another if an adjacent ally is attacked" and that is great. Since no other rules are stated, you then go to the aid another section for the rules on attempting that action. Which is that you must be in a position to make a melee attack on the opponent engaging a friend in melee combat. You make an attack roll against AC 10, and if successful you can give either AC or Atk bonus to your friend.
Bodyguard modifies the action type (As an AoO instead of standard) and restricts you to AC bonus only. It does not state that you don't have to be in a position to make a melee attack on the enemy, so that part of Aid Another stands, the same that the AC 10 attack roll part stands.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because stating their intentions doesn't change the wording that is written on the PRD and books. I would like if they would include it in the next errata for that book, so that the written words match the intention of the feat, but until that happens, as written, you have to threaten.I think the threatening requirement stands.I can understand that as worded it can be interpreted like that, but when the author of the feat has stated his intentions and a developer has said that it doesn't, how can you still say "I think the threatening requirement stands"?
I'm sorry, this is rules lawyering at its absolute worst. "The developers have clearly stated their intentions but because there's a typo I can obviously buy this for 5000c instead of 5000g." That's basically what I'm seeing here.
I'm sorry, this is rules lawyering at its absolute worst. "The developers have clearly stated their intentions but because there's a typo I can obviously buy this for 5000c instead of 5000g." That's basically what I'm seeing here.Because stating their intentions doesn't change the wording that is written on the PRD and books. I would like if they would include it in the next errata for that book, so that the written words match the intention of the feat, but until that happens, as written, you have to threaten.I think the threatening requirement stands.I can understand that as worded it can be interpreted like that, but when the author of the feat has stated his intentions and a developer has said that it doesn't, how can you still say "I think the threatening requirement stands"?
The rules are what they are. Until they issue Errata to change those rules, they still say the same thing.
It is perfectly reasonable to houserule the feat to work the way it was intended until that time, however, for something like PFS or someone who doesn't frequent the forums to see the intention, it functions as I said.
|
|
I'm sorry, this is rules lawyering at its absolute worst. "The developers have clearly stated their intentions but because there's a typo I can obviously buy this for 5000c instead of 5000g." That's basically what I'm seeing here.Because stating their intentions doesn't change the wording that is written on the PRD and books. I would like if they would include it in the next errata for that book, so that the written words match the intention of the feat, but until that happens, as written, you have to threaten.I think the threatening requirement stands.I can understand that as worded it can be interpreted like that, but when the author of the feat has stated his intentions and a developer has said that it doesn't, how can you still say "I think the threatening requirement stands"?The rules are what they are. Until they issue Errata to change those rules, they still say the same thing.
It is perfectly reasonable to houserule the feat to work the way it was intended until that time, however, for something like PFS or someone who doesn't frequent the forums to see the intention, it functions as I said.
Again that's your opinion. There are multiple ways to interpret this as pointed out above. I have yet to see a GM for PFS enforce your interpretation.
|
|
The devs have not stated that it works like you suggest. JJ said in his home games that he would allow it, which is a very different thing. If you want to go by the authors intended RAI, that's fine, but the RAW, in my opinion, leans the other way, and the Pathfinder devs don't always go by the original authors intentions. Nothing in the bodyguard text removes the need to be able to make a melee attack against the attacker, it just lets you perform the action as a pseudo-AoO.I'm sorry, this is rules lawyering at its absolute worst. "The developers have clearly stated their intentions but because there's a typo I can obviously buy this for 5000c instead of 5000g." That's basically what I'm seeing here.Because stating their intentions doesn't change the wording that is written on the PRD and books. I would like if they would include it in the next errata for that book, so that the written words match the intention of the feat, but until that happens, as written, you have to threaten.I think the threatening requirement stands.I can understand that as worded it can be interpreted like that, but when the author of the feat has stated his intentions and a developer has said that it doesn't, how can you still say "I think the threatening requirement stands"?
"Bodyguard does indeed allow you to protect someone when you're not in melee range of an attacking creature." In no uncertain words says anything about "home game". If you're talking about something else then I have no idea what you're referencing.
I'm sure that's very far toward the bottom of their monstrous "to-do" list. It's much easier for them to just say "Yeah this is how it's supposed to work: " than to spend millions on reprinting the book due to a tiny technicality in the wording.Then they should fix the wording on the feat.Well, JJ disagrees, so there's that.Sorry, meant use an AoO. :)
You must be adjacent to your ally because bodyguard says so. And you must threaten the enemy because to Aid Another you must threaten the creature you are providing an ally an AC bonus to. I don't get why there is any variation at all to be honest.
They do have a system for noting errata or officially answering questions on ambiguously written rules. They have not included this in the FAQ to date.
I think the threatening requirement stands.I can understand that as worded it can be interpreted like that, but when the author of the feat has stated his intentions and a developer has said that it doesn't, how can you still say "I think the threatening requirement stands"?
Because as the author said:
"While as always my authorial opinions are simply that, and not official errata in any way for the purpose of RAW, PFS, etc.,"
Material goes through an editing process after author submission and can be changed before being published. If rules material that is published does not match up with the author's original intent it is reasonable to consider the actual published rule as different from the original author's intent.
And because it is possible to reasonably disagree with an individual developer on interpreting RAW.
Yes, the bodyguard feat says specifically, "you can attempt to aid another if an adjacent ally is attacked" and that is great. Since no other rules are stated, you then go to the aid another section for the rules on attempting that action. Which is that you must be in a position to make a melee attack on the opponent engaging a friend in melee combat. You make an attack roll against AC 10, and if successful you can give either AC or Atk bonus to your friend.Bodyguard modifies the action type (As an AoO instead of standard) and restricts you to AC bonus only. It does not state that you don't have to be in a position to make a melee attack on the enemy, so that part of Aid Another stands, the same that the AC 10 attack roll part stands.
I think you are wrong.
I think you are wrong.
Bodyguard specifically modifies the prereqs because it states explicitly that you can attempt to aid another if you are adjacent to an ally.
By your reading, you could not attempt to aid another unless you could also attack the enemy which _is in direct contradiction_ to the specific bodyguard feat which explicitly says that you can.
The feat says you can attempt, the normal action says you can't, a direct contradiction. When a contradiction exists, specific overrides general. This is how the rules are interpreted.
Again, by your reading a contradiction exists, and you are resolving the contradiction using the _general_ action instead of the specific overriding feat. This is not correct, IMO. The 'must threaten the attacker' would stand if it wasn't contradicted by the feat. It is contradicted by the feat.
I think the crux of my issue with the wording is the word "attempt." You can attempt to aid another if you are adjacent. That does not mean the aid another is guaranteed. Since that is all that is stated, we then go to aid another, and requirements are, 1) be able to make a melee attack against the creature, and 2) succeed on an attack roll vs AC 10. So, either a) bodyguard references aid another, whose requirements all apply, as bodyguard does not specifically change any of them. Or b) bodyguard uses the word "attempt" for no reason, and none of the requirements of the aid another apply, so you just get to do it, without being able to make a melee attack and without having to hit AC 10 with an attack roll.
They go hand in hand, if you don't need to be able to make a melee attack on the creature, then you don't need to make the attack roll either.