|
Aid Another is an attack, but that doesn't mean it's an attack of opportunity.
The fact that the Bodyguard Feat's AoO cannot be used to inflict damage is not insignificant, but lots of Feats have limitations as to what kind of attack you can use. It's almost impossible, for instance to use any Attack of Opportunity Feat to initiate a Grapple.
This is because a grapple must generally be initiated as a standard action, not in place of a melee attack - it's a general limitation, not a specific one.
If you have Greater Bull Rush, you also can't use an Attack of Opportunity to damage your opponent: the Bull Rushing Character using Greater Bull Rush isn't even the one who gets Attacks of Opportunity. Only his allies do. Between even Greater Trip and Greater Bull Rush, there are extreme differences. I don't think it is clear that the difference between Bodyguard and Greater Trip is greater than the difference between Greater Trip and Greater Bull Rush.
These differences are only in who the AoO are provoked from - the actual AoO are executed normally and can be used with any weapon or for any attack normally allowed with an AoO. Additionally, both feats use the clear language "provokes AoO."
The only restriction I am aware of regarding how the AoO is actually made is in Snake Fang, which requires you to use an UAS ("make an unarmed strike against that opponent as an attack of opportunity") and that's still a standard, damaging attack against the opponent and against their AC rather than an attack roll against AC 10 (which makes the question of who the target is a little fuzzy).
And you'll still get arguments that Snake Fang doesn't work with Paired Opportunists because it says "make... as an AoO" rather than "your opponent provokes an AoO, which must be performed using an UAS" because there's no explicit rule stating that "make an AoO against X" = "X provokes an AoO."
The general rules about how AoOs need to be provoked before they can be made don't apply to feats that tell you you can use an AoO to do something other than make a regular AoO.
The wording of the feat doesn't connect to the regular AoO rules at all.
And have a look at this, from the CRB:
"Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square."
Some feats explicitly add to the actions and circumstances that cause AoOs to be provoked. Bodyguard doesn't, neither explicitly nor implicitly. The only reason you think it might do that is your insistence that it's absolutely impossible for AoOs to be used outside of the general scope of the basic rules for AoOs. But guess what, as I posted before, that impossibility isn't there. Bodyguard is a feat, and feats create new possibilities that might "...grant you the ability to take actions otherwise prohibited to you..."
The feat doesn't say it provokes. The feat doesn't need to provoke to work. There is no provocation.
The Core Rulebook only allows for Attacks of Opportunity when they are provoked.
It doesn't.
That interpretation is a logical fallacy.
It explains how you can make AoOs after they are provoked. It doesn't state anywhere that feats may not add ways to use AoOs other than through provoking.
The RAW and RAI of the feat are clear. It allows you to use one without one being provoked.
- The feat doesn't say it provokes.
- The feat doesn't need to provoke to work.
- There is no provocation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott, the feat can be read multiple ways. Either the people who disagree with you are enormously stupid, every single one of us, or there is legitimately room for disagreement about the correct interpretation.
Now, you can either agree that there is room to disagree, or stomp off to your room in a huff of unappreciated genius and put on The Cure (man, I'm old. What do angsty teens listen to these days?). I'm gonna assume that you're not a solipsist.
So, given that multiple interpretations are possible, and given the fact that everyone, even the writers explicitly disagree with you...you still don't understand the concept of "extraordinary burden of proof"?
Anyways, even if your analysis is correct - which it isn't, because language is a tool to communicate intent, and clinging to an interpretation in contradiction of clarified intent is just retarded - you still haven't adressed the other reason your build doesn't work: The one who provokes an opportunity attack is your ally, by being attacked, and the target of that opportunity attack is your ally.
So, no one else feels like weighting in on the argument of who actually provoked the AOO?
The one who provokes an attack of opportunity is the one who attacks your ally, and your ally's attacker is the one being attacked.
How can an entity that isn't mentioned in the feat at all be considered to be doing something that isn't mentioned in the feat at all?
Conjecture upon conjecture based on nothing present in the text.
The one who provokes an attack of opportunity is the one who attacks your ally, and your ally's attacker is the one being attacked.How can an entity that isn't mentioned in the feat at all be considered to be doing something that isn't mentioned in the feat at all?
Conjecture upon conjecture based on nothing present in the text.
An attack implies an attacker. Aid Another is an attack, and you don't attack allies.
It sure makes a lot more sense than saying that you can use an attack of opportunity to make an attack but you still aren't making an attack of opportunity, and even if you were, there is nothing provoking it, even though all attacks of opportunity are provoked.
The best explanation for that I heard is that that is actually what the author intended! And that's why I have added my voice to claudekennilol's to get it fixed with an FAQ
The feat unequivocally states that it triggers upon something happening to an adjacent ally. That something isn't classified as something that provokes an AoO.
There's absolutely no need to drag anything from the CRB into it that isn't needed for the feat to simply do as it says it does. If it says it lets you use an AoO to do something under a specific circumstance, that's what it does. It does not matter that regular AoOs need to be provoked in order to be allowed to be made.
The feat adds a new option to a character's arsenal of abilities, and it doesn't have to do or require anything other than what it says it does or requires.
And you keep saying that all AoOs are provoked. That only goes for AoOs one makes. The core rules say nothing restrictive about AoOs one uses for other purposes than to make one. That concept doesn't even exist under the core AoO rules, so how could they restrict it?
Ok, so you are saying that you actually can use bodyguard if and only if the attacker is within your reach, since otherways you cannot actually perform the AOO granted to you by bodyguard, since no special provision is made for attacking something beyond your reach, like for example strike back.
I don't think so, I think that the feat is intended to be also usefull against arrows and other ranged attacks.
I see now your line of reasoning. I think you actually have a point since there is no line in the Bodyguard feat that alter the "aid another" action aside from the spent action, and indeed the "aid another" action work as an attack against the enemy making the attack even when used to provide bonus to the AC.
So as it stands right now I think you are indeed correct.
That being said I think the feat would be both more functional and less prone to abuse if it was the other way around. Let's hope that the "errata as FAQ" strikes for once in a direction I personally like.
First, you're arguing from an invalid premise. "If the enemy provokes, then you may take an AoO" is not the same statement as "You may take an AoO only when the enemy provokes and under no other circumstances" (either in grammar or in symbolic logic--take your pick).Those are 2 different statements. I'm not sure which statement you think I adopted as my premise and which you think is false. Neither is, in fact, my premise.
I was saying more the latter minus the “no other circumstances.” I'm not saying that no Feat could possibly allow Attacks of Opportunity to happen with one being “provoked,” but I am saying that the Bodyguard Feat does not represent such an exception beyond being just another Attack of Opportunity trigger. Without compelling evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that all the rules are in play and are not meant to blow holes open in each other.
Wait.
So you admit that there are feats that will let you make an attack of opportunity without the target "provoking" one?
If you accept that statement, how is it that you still believe that Bodyguard is not one of these feats?
There is no text in the Bodyguard feat to even hint that it changes the rules on what provokes an AoO, or "adds another trigger" or anything like that. Nothing.
Making a melee attack does not provoke an AoO.
Therefore, Bodyguard is one of those feats that lets you make an Attack of Opportunity without the target provoking one.
I am not arguing from a false premise. I have comprehensively demonstrated my premise to be true.
No, you have not. You have simply repeated your claim without offering any further explanation or evidence. And you have not offered any substantive rebuttal to the significant evidence brought against your claim.
Are you just trolling at this point?
Because I promise you that 90% of PFS GMs will laugh you off the table if you tried this.
Another 8% will probably say, "OK, but that means that all of the negative implications of this premise apply (see my post for the list)."
No, it isn't. It specifically says you get an attack of opportunity, and since the only way you get an attack of opportunity is by being provoked, attacking the ally of someone who has the Bodyguard Feat Provokes an Attack of Opportunity.Technically this is incorrect. Check out the fortuitous weapon enchantment.
We have to go with the idea that Bodyguard works like all the other AoO Feats like Snake Fang, Greater Bull Rush, and Greater Trip. What these Feats do is add another Distracting Act to the list of things that cause Attacks of Opportunity. For bodyguard, that Distracting Act is Attack an Ally.
These distracting acts, this is what that refers to:
Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.
So attacking someone distracts your attention from the battle? That is mighty odd, as attacking someone is the essence of being involved in a battle. That alone should tell you that the whole premise you're presenting is nonsense.
Attacking cannot by any sane point of view be an action that distracts you from the battle. It is you doing battle. As such, it can't be a distracting act that provokes an Attack of Opportunity. This lends undeniable credence to the notion that Bodyguard doesn't intend to imply that it causes people to provoke Attacks of Opportunity.
When you have the obvious intent that there's no provocation paired with the absence of explicit language that establishes provocation, it's abundantly clear that there's no provocation.
Scott, you are repeatedly proving the fact that Aid Another is an attack. I think we are mostly cool with that. However, you provided no evidence on Bodyguard actually provoking. Nowhere is stated in the feats, only that it lets you use one. Compare with greater trip or bull rush or the likes.
And yes, "provoking" is actually a game term, not a colloquial term. The diciture "provokes:yes" means a specific things, and you don't see it actually used for anything else.
There are many instances in pathfinder of a feat or ability that lets you use a predetermined resource for a different use, and in all those case none of the actual rules of those resources actually triggers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I just sat through this whole thing and I just don't see how Scott's interpretation is anything but RAW.
Firstly, take a look at any of the various Common Terms lists on various Pathfinder websites. Do you see Provoke on them, maybe between Player Character and Ranged attack? No? OK. So we can stop waffling about Provoke as if it were some sacred game term. It isn't.
Since provoke doesn't mean anything special, it's use or non-use are completely irrelevant to RAW. You can interpret Bodyguard/Paired Opportunist synergy one of two ways
1) Bodyguard allows you to make a special AoO that MUST be Aid Other on the attacked Ally, obeying all rules for the Aid Other action (You must be able to make a melee attack against the triggering enemy, and the triggering attack must be a melee attack). As this is an AoO that the triggering enemy, well, triggered, the attacked ally gets an AoO against the triggering enemy, provided, of course, they threaten the triggering enemy in some way.
2) Bodyguard allowing you to use an attack (that's called Aid Other) to exploit an opportunity given to you by an enemy triggering a specific reaction doesn't allow your ally to make use of a their feat because reasons.
Aid Other Rules, for reference
Aid Another
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 ... a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent's next attack... , as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn
Does this limit the utility of Bodyguard? You betcha. It's extremely situational.
I realize my argument essentially boils down to whether or not "provoke" actually means anything in a RAW sense. I don't believe it does, because it isn't explicitly, formally defined by any official material. Until it IS formally defined, I will continue to believe this. If you, (the universal you) believe it has an implicit meaning that gives weight to it's use vs non-use, we shall have to agree to disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly, take a look at any of the various Common Terms lists on various Pathfinder websites. Do you see Provoke on them, maybe between Player Character and Ranged attack? No? OK. So we can stop waffling about Provoke as if it were some sacred game term. It isn't.
Since provoke doesn't mean anything special, it's use or non-use are completely irrelevant to RAW.
If "provoke" (or more completely "provoking an attack of opportunity") isn't considered a game term with a specific meaning, the whole thing falls apart even more drastically than if it is.
Here's why:
You can't disregard the meaning of "provoke" as a game term without it losing its meaning in the phrasing of Paired Opportunists as well.
If it has no inherent rules meaning, the occurrence in Paired Opportunists doesn't have an inherent rules meaning either. If it doesn't have an inherent meaning in Paired Opportunists, the phrasing in that feat ("Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity") can only be satisfied by situations that explicitly mention a similar phrase, i.e. situations that explicitly mention attacks of opportunity being provoked, or a phrase that's synonymous in common English.
Firstly, take a look at any of the various Common Terms lists on various Pathfinder websites. Do you see Provoke on them, maybe between Player Character and Ranged attack? No? OK. So we can stop waffling about Provoke as if it were some sacred game term. It isn't.
Since provoke doesn't mean anything special, it's use or non-use are completely irrelevant to RAW.
If "provoke" (or more completely "provoking an attack of opportunity") isn't considered a game term with a specific meaning, the whole thing falls apart even more drastically than if it is.
Here's why:
You can't disregard the meaning of "provoke" as a game term without it losing its meaning in the phrasing of Paired Opportunists as well.
If it has no inherent rules meaning, the occurrence in Paired Opportunists doesn't have an inherent rules meaning either. If it doesn't have an inherent meaning in Paired Opportunists, the phrasing in that feat ("Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity") can only be satisfied by situations that explicitly mention a similar phrase, i.e. situations that explicitly mention attacks of opportunity being provoked, or a phrase that's synonymous in common English.
What? No. Just... No. Nothing you just said makes any sense.
Provoke still means provoke. It just isn't some magic word that's mere presence changes the rules. It could be replaced with "trigger" or "cause" or "allows you to make" without changing anything at all. I literally can't comprehend how you got where you did from what I said.
Firstly, take a look at any of the various Common Terms lists on various Pathfinder websites. Do you see Provoke on them, maybe between Player Character and Ranged attack? No? OK. So we can stop waffling about Provoke as if it were some sacred game term. It isn't.
Since provoke doesn't mean anything special, it's use or non-use are completely irrelevant to RAW.
If "provoke" (or more completely "provoking an attack of opportunity") isn't considered a game term with a specific meaning, the whole thing falls apart even more drastically than if it is.
Here's why:
You can't disregard the meaning of "provoke" as a game term without it losing its meaning in the phrasing of Paired Opportunists as well.
If it has no inherent rules meaning, the occurrence in Paired Opportunists doesn't have an inherent rules meaning either. If it doesn't have an inherent meaning in Paired Opportunists, the phrasing in that feat ("Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity") can only be satisfied by situations that explicitly mention a similar phrase, i.e. situations that explicitly mention attacks of opportunity being provoked, or a phrase that's synonymous in common English.
What? No. Just... No. Nothing you just said makes any sense.
Provoke still means provoke. It just isn't some magic word that's mere presence changes the rules. It could be replaced with "trigger" or "cause" or "allows you to make" without changing anything at all. I literally can't comprehend how you got where you did from what I said.
Did you miss: "or a phrase that's synonymous in common English" in my post? Because that covers exactly what you're talking about with your replacement phrases.
I did forget the final conclusion of my post though, which was that Bodyguard has none such synonymous phrasing and therefore it can't satisfy the condition in Paired Opportunists.
Did you miss: "or a phrase that's synonymous in common English" in my post? Because that covers exactly what you're talking about with your replacement phrases.
I did forget the final conclusion of my post though, which was that Bodyguard has none such synonymous phrasing and therefore it can't satisfy the condition in Paired Opportunists.
No, I didn't miss it, it was included in my "makes no sense comment." It's a totally faulty argument. If Provoke is a game term, it has no synonyms in relation to the rules. Since Provoke has no significance outside it's meaning as the English word "provoke" it has many synonyms. Removing restriction does not add restriction, it removes it.
The crux of many arguments against "Yes" being the answer to the original question is that "Bodyguard doesn't say provoke, Paired Opportunist DOES say provoke, therefore Bodyguard doesn't trigger Paired Opportunists." Which would be true, if Provoke was a meaningful game term. But it's not. It's a word that was chosen and used more or less consistently over the course of the development/conversion of the game.
Without Provoke, Pair Opportunists can be paraphrased as "whenever one player with this feat gets to make an AoO against a creature, any player who also threatens said creature AND has this feat can make an AoO, if they couldn't already."
Without Provoke, Bodyguard clearly allows an AoO, which is against the trigger enemy, because it impact the ability of that enemy to hit. Aid Other has a two targets, a specific ally and a specific enemy. The flavor of the attack clearly indicates you are actively hampering the targeted enemy in some way.
As to your conclusion, the only relevant terms either feat includes is AoO. BG is an AoO, because Aid Other is an attack, and PO lets AoOs allow allies to make AoOs. Synonymous phrasing.
|
So, given that multiple interpretations are possible, and given the fact that everyone, even the writers explicitly disagree with you...you still don't understand the concept of "extraordinary burden of proof"?I've met the burden of proof again and again, comprehensively.
The fact that my interpretation is unpopular or even unintended does not change the fact that it is legal, and nobody has the right to stop a player from playing a PFS character just like the one I described on this thread. And if this is a problem, it is incumbent on the community to get Paizo to make an official ruling on the matter.
For the record, I have a Mouser actively using both feats, I feel bodyguard doesn't allow the paired opportunist to trigger. I use it simply because my Mouser will always be threatening the same opponents and Paired Opp allows both me and my ally to fire off AOO's for it leaving my square.
All I'm saying is there is certainly room in the interpretation for an opinion contrary to yours. At my table you could play the character but Bodyguard would not provoke Paired Opportunist (and your character would not be broken).
At the end of the day, the "rules as written" must be interpreted by the GM and they may not go your way. I hope you handle it with grace.
You keep cutting off Special Attacks.
Special Attacks
This section discusses all of the various standard maneuvers you can perform during combat other than normal attacks, casting spells, or using other class abilities. Some of these special attacks can be made as part of another action (such as an attack) or as an attack of opportunity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for your response. I think you missed my point regarding your character. Its perfectly legal. That is separate from the bodyguard/PO interaction.
You are passionate in your belief and I appreciate that. However, your responses to others lead me to believe you will argue your point to a GM to the point of someone taking it personal. You have the advantage of researching 1 subject in advance to debate it catching the GM unprepared for a corner case. This in no way proves your point, as a matter of fact it could be construed as bullying (even if unintended), especially with a new GM.
I further disagree your opinion is binding to PFS GMs as THEY are the arbitrator of the rules, minus a clarifying FAQ.
For what it's worth, I have clicked FAQ as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I further disagree your opinion is binding to PFS GMs as THEY are the arbitrator of the rules, minus a clarifying FAQ.PFS GMs have just got to obey the rules as written. It's fundamental to the whole idea of PFS. Your character is supposed to work the same way at every PFS table you bring that to. Consistency of product is the essential ingredient, and adherence to RAW is the way to deliver that. I consider it a customer service and quality control issue, and I guess it is fair to say I am passionate about that.
For what it's worth, unless this FAQ comes out and clarifies, if you were sitting at my table at PFS bodyguard wouldn't trigger paired opportunists regardless of how much you explained it to me for reasons I've already explained.
If you pressed your point or refused to go with my interpretation, there are a few things that could happen. One of us would leave, or I'd simply smile and nod when you tried things I already said wouldn't work and none of it would do anything.
I further disagree your opinion is binding to PFS GMs as THEY are the arbitrator of the rules, minus a clarifying FAQ.PFS GMs have just got to obey the rules as written. It's fundamental to the whole idea of PFS. Your character is supposed to work the same way at every PFS table you bring that to. Consistency of product is the essential ingredient, and adherence to RAW is the way to deliver that. I consider it a customer service and quality control issue, and I guess it is fair to say I am passionate about that.
For what it's worth, unless this FAQ comes out and clarifies, if you were sitting at my table at PFS bodyguard wouldn't trigger paired opportunists regardless of how much you explained it to me for reasons I've already explained.
If you pressed your point or refused to go with my interpretation, there are a few things that could happen. One of us would leave, or I'd simply smile and nod when you tried things I already said wouldn't work and none of it would do anything.
Yep. In the end, unclear rules/interpretations come down to the GM. When you optimize and push into the grey area of rules interpretation expect table variation, even in PFS.
So, given that multiple interpretations are possible, and given the fact that everyone, even the writers explicitly disagree with you...you still don't understand the concept of "extraordinary burden of proof"?I've met the burden of proof again and again, comprehensively.
The fact that my interpretation is unpopular or even unintended does not change the fact that it is legal, and nobody has the right to stop a player from playing a PFS character just like the one I described on this thread. And if this is a problem, it is incumbent on the community to get Paizo to make an official ruling on the matter.
It is clear to you, but people disagree with you... Just because you don't agree with their disagreement does not make your point more valid.
The rules do seem unclear about this.
I take the side of: Using aid another does not give your ally an attack of opportunity on the enemy.
Lots of evidence has been presented on both sides of this, I'm siding against you, not because of personal reasons, but because I tend to take a holistic approach to the game.
Meaning...
If the rules are in contention, I make a judgement call on what I think is the intention of design.
The rules are clearly in contention. Repeating that they are clear does not make it so.
I am interested in what the official ruling is on this, if any occurs.