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.
This reasoning can quickly become absurd though.
"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.
If you have used up all your normal AoOs for a round can you still use one to do bodyguard because it says explicitly "you may use an attack of opportunity"? Generally you can only use a certain number of AoOs in a round, does this explicit authorization to use an AoO in a specific circumstance trump that general rule limit?
Can you bodyguard if you are paralyzed or held? Unconscious? Stunned? Dead?
Can you bodyguard if you are paralyzed or held? Unconscious? Stunned? Dead?
Sorry, but I hate status effects for example of doing actions. "Dead doesn't say you can't perform actions therefore you can" examples need to stop.
Paralyzed: can't move or act.
Held: I can only assume means "under the effect of hold person" as there is no "held" status. Which is paralyzed. Can't move or act.
Unconscious: Knocked out and helpless. Doesn't say you can't take actions though. You must be a sleepwalker.
Stunned: can't take actions
Dead: You are dead. And decay normally. Also doesn't say you can't take actions, therefore you must still be able to. Woo. Lets be absurd.
|
You can attempt means you can attempt. Whether you fail or not IS NOT a function of whether it's rules legal. If you are not adjacent to the enemy, you CANNOT ATTEMPT a normal aid another. If something says you can attempt something given certain circumstances, then you can attempt it. Hence, bodyguard lets you attempt the aid another action by simply being adjacent to the defender.
You can attempt means you can attempt. Whether you fail or not IS NOT a function of whether it's rules legal. If you are not adjacent to the enemy, you CANNOT ATTEMPT a normal aid another. If something says you can attempt something given certain circumstances, then you can attempt it. Hence, bodyguard lets you attempt the aid another action by simply being adjacent to the defender.
You can attempt aid another as long as you are able to make a melee attack on that creature. So at 15' away with a whip is perfectly valid.
If you don't spend a standard action, you cannot attempt a normal aid another either.
The problem is it says "to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally's AC". That is all that is given. If it exempts you from the requirements of Aid another, then why does it not exempt you from needing to make an attack against AC 10 also?