Second, even assuming that your premise is valid, I think you'll quickly find more disadvantages than benefits by taking the stance that "Bodyguard is an actual AoO and follows all the AoO rules in the Core Rulebook:
Gwen, there were some interesting ideas you brought up in your first post that I've been wanting to examine.
Gwen Smith wrote:
1) There are a specific list of actions in the Core Rulebook that provoke an AoO. Bodyguard does not contain any text that alters that list (e.g., "attacking your ally provokes an attack of opportunity"), so you can only use Bodyguard if the enemy somehow also provokes an AoO at the same time that enemy attacks your ally. (Good luck with that.)
But Bodyguard specifically says that you can use an attack of opportunity when your adjacent ally is attacked. And since Aid Another is an attack, Bodyguard says that you can use an attack of opportunity to make an attack. In other words, you can make an attack of opportunity. The triggering act is the opponent attacking your ally. It's just like a lot of other attack of opportunity trigger feats.
Gwen Smith wrote:
2) As defined in the Core Rulebook, AoOs can only be taken when you threaten the enemy in melee. Therefore, you can only use Bodyguard when you are both threatening the enemy and adjacent to your ally. This means you can never use Bodyguard against an enemy with reach or against a ranged attack.
This is an interesting point. Someone else brought this up, but I think you brought it up first. I don't entirely agree with you, though. When you are using a Reach weapon, don't you indeed Threaten the squares within Reach. So, if you have Bodyguard, you are adjacent ot your ally, you have a Horsechopper, and an opponent opposite you from your ally attacks your ally, you should indeed be able to use your Horsechopper to make "swift strikes" that effectively increase your ally's AC by +2.
Conceptually, it doesn't seem at all odd that this attack to Aid Another should be "Distracting" enough to allow a swift-acting warrior, such as someone with the Paired Opportunist Feat, to be able to exploit that distraction enough to make an AoO of her own.
And you are right, it does mean you normally wouldn't be allowed to use a Ranged Weapon with the Bodyguard Feat. To that, you'd need to take Snap Shot Feats, which allow you to threaten at range.
Gwen Smith wrote:
3) As defined in the Core Rulebook, an AoO must attack the enemy. The Aid Another action usually only requires a DC 10. If Bodyguard follows the AoO rules from the Core Rulebook, you must attack the enemy's AC; if you miss, your ally doesn't get the boost to AC. (This means that Bodyguard becomes less useful against tougher enemies, which is when you need it most.)
Aid Another is already described by the Core Rulebook as a Special Attack. The Core Rulebook says you are indeed attacking your enemy when you use Aid Another, and when you do, you only need to hit vs. AC 10. I guess that's okay since you are only giving your ally a +2 bonus instead of inflicting damage against someone else's AC.
Gwen Smith wrote:
4) As defined in the Core Rulebook, an AoO is not a standard action. Aid Another is a standard action. If Bodyguard is an AoO and follows all of the AoO rules in the Core Rulebook, you can't actually use it at all.
The whole idea of Feats is that they let you take actions when you normally can't. The fact that Bodyguard lets you use Aid Another as an Attack of Opportunity is not odd at all.
Gwen Smith wrote:
Third, as new rules come out, they can alter, expand, and even invalidate old rules without explicitly referencing the original rules.
I'm not certain that's true. If it is, then the Swashbuckler ability, Opportune Parry and Riposte would be a Class Ability that does indeed let you make a Regular Attack of opportunity and would trigger Paired Opportunist. The text that makes me think differently is that it says, "as if she were making an attack of opportunity." That tells me that is NOT actually an Attack of Opportunity, but it says so IMPLICITLY, not EXPLICITLY. However implicitly, it says so.
I would agree with you if you said "specifically referencing the original rules."
Bodyguard explicitly says you may use an attack of opportunity to make an attack that, if successful, gives your ally a +2 to her AC whenever your adjacent ally is attacked.
What is implicit is that you are attacking your ally's attacker, and so must Threaten her. What is implicit is that all attacks of opportunity trigger when they are what the Core Rulebook calls "provoked." What is implicit is that using your attack of opportunity to make an attack = making an attack of opportunity. If Aid Another weren't an attack, this wouldn't be the case.
my made up hypothetical Feat I wrote:
Smooth Talking Pretty Boy:
Benefit: anytime you are attacked, you may make a Diplomacy Check as an attack of opportunity to improve your Attackers' attitudes toward you. For the purposes of using this Feat, ignore all situational penalties to the Diplomacy check, and you get a +2 Circumstance bonus that increases by another +2 for each successive attack your opponents makes against you.
In this case, you'd be using an Attack of Opportunity to make a Diplomacy check, not make an attack, and this is very different from making an attack of opportunity. So, Paired Opportunist wouldn't necessarily trigger.
I would agree with you that Mr. Nelson SHOULD have been explicit. Then this thread would have been unnecessary.
Gwen Smith wrote:
Fourth, I suggest that Bodyguard is a much better feat if you read it as a extension of the Aid Another rules and ignore the AoO rules outside of "how to count your AoOs per round). As a variant of the Aid Another rules, Bodyguard specifically lets you use Aid Another multiple times per round by expending an AoO (without actually taking an attack). With the current interpretation of Bodyguard (as referenced by developers on the forums), you can use Bodyguard against ranged attacks and against opponents with reach.
Possibly, and maybe you should have written that Feat, and not Nelson. Your version of the feat is perfectly reasonable, and more useful at giving your allies AC bonuses.
But as you were saying, the Bodyguard Feat can only do what it says it does, and we can't assume it allows you to use attacks of opportunity without making attacks of opportunity or make attacks of opportunity with out any being provoked. That's an unprecedented interpretation, and truly needs to be explicit, or at least specific. On the other hand, there are lots of precedents for Attack of Opportunity trigger Feats that list specific provoking triggers such as successful trips, repositions, and bull rushes, getting missed in melee, and things like that. And there are lots of precedents for specific limitations on what those Attacks of Opportunity can be, such as you have to be the one who trips the opponent vs. the opponent merely going Prone in your presence as in Vicious Stomp. Vicious Stomp doesn't let you make any old AoO, only an Unarmed one. With Greater Bull Rush, you don't get to make the AoO, your allies do. With Smooth Talking Pretty Boy, you only get to make Diplomacy Checks. And so with Bodyguard, you are limited to Aid Another.
Per RAW it doesn't work. Paired Opportunist requires a provocation which the enemy doesn't provide despite Body Guard allowing an attack of opportunity to aid another using that mechanic.
It's right there in black in white, but you know that already. RAW must be interpreted, and the fact we can read the same passage with 2 different meaning requires clarification. No matter how many times the same tired arguments are repeated neither side will yeid because they are both consistent with RAW. However, the GM remains the final arbitrator of rules (with player input) in these cases.
And for the record: "I found a loophole mechanic, I know is an unintended exploit, but I am going to use it despite upsetting other players and GMs" isn't helping your cause.
Understand that I'm not making an accusation, I merely ask you apply the introspective question of "If the whole society were like me, what kind of society would it be?"
Rather than plan characters using grey area corner cases, why not wait until clarification, rather than advocating shady mechanics that virtually assure arguments at the table. The fact that these mechanics have both been published 5 years without these shenanigans should raise eyebrows for all readers and your interpretation is specifically strained and biased towards wanting it to work.
Society is a shared experience, and if a player insists it revolves around them, I will ask them to leave, or I will. Regardless of which of us leaves the table, the Pathfinder Society will be the poorer for it.
Understand that is separate from a debate on mechanics on these forums, which is their intent. It's the actively encouraging of "exploits" regardless of other players that needs to be placed on a back burner.
At the end of the day, this is an area requiring FAQ clarification.
Per RAW it doesn't work. Paired Opportunist requires a provocation which the enemy doesn't provide
There is a provocation.
Bodyguard wrote:
When an adjacent ally is attacked,
Bodyguard triggers when your ally is attacked. That is the provocation. The attacker is therefore the one who provokes. Remember that Aid Another is actually an attack, listed under Special Attacks. The flavor text of Bodyguard says that it works via your "swift strikes." Whom are you attacking? At whom are you directing those swift strikes? Your ally's attacker, of course. She is the one who provoked the Attack of Opportunity.
grey area corner cases, why not wait until clarification, rather than advocating shady mechanics
I have answered your rules-based argument, and I have demonstrated that, based on the rules, my interpretation is the LEAST shady interpretation of the Bodyguard Feat. By "least shady," I mean most in line with the text of the rules considering the case in question in terms of its precise words taken in context with the general rules and other feats like it.
I have unshadily shown you the words “use an attack of opportunity” in the Feat description and said that this is an Attack of Opportunity Feat, whereas my detractors are shadily proposing that in some exotic way the feat uses attacks of opportunity without making attacks of opportunity.
Some of my detractors have tried to say that Bodyguard doesn't grant Attacks of Opportunity because doesn't grant the ability to use regular attacks, just Aid Another. But I have shown that Aid Another absolutely IS an attack: it's listed as an attack under the heading Special Attacks. I'm the one who is saying that you are using an Attack of Opportunity to make an Attack, so you are making an Attack of Opportunity. I am the one who is NOT being SHADY, here!
I have unshadily demonstrated that the Core Rulebook shows that all Attacks of Opportunity are Provoked, and there is no way provided in the Core Rulebook for one to happen otherwise. My detractors have been shadily pushing forward the idea that just because the word “provoke” wasn't used this time, that the Core Rulebook doesn't apply!
I have unshadily stated that attacks have attackers, and that in Pathfinder, you attack opponents, not allies. My detractors have been trying to say that because the Feat doesn't explicitly state that there is an attacker, there is no attacker and the Attack of Opportunity is made upon the Ally!
Admittedly, I appear to have more opponents than allies in this argument. But if all you can say is that the least popular interpretation of the rules is the least shady interpretation of the rules, then what you are saying that everybody needs to click on that FAQ button. The whole point of this thread is to iron out this wrinkle.
Grey_Mage wrote:
No matter how many times the same tired arguments are repeated neither side will yield because they are both consistent with RAW.
This is precisely why I added my voice to claudekennilol's in calling for an FAQ, and am urging everyone to do the same.
Meanwhile, there is not character I can build that won't raise somebody's eyebrows. There is always somebody out there who will think of some justification for declaring some part of somebody's build illegal, and they will press those arguments regardless of the merit.
This thread is powerful evidence of that. Here I am discussing an attack of opportunity feat and saying it should be treated like an attack of opportunity feat, and I get like a half dozen people inventing exotic ways of using attacks of opportunity that aren't attacks of opportunity that trigger without being provoked and have attacks directed at allies! What do you think of THOSE shennanigans?
And honestly, you want everybody to make their characters so boring that nobody will be interested enough to find fault with them? I have a counter proposal: why don't we all just use the pregens?
This is why the GMs need to go by RAW. We pay money to play this game. We are customers, and we have rights. Suggesting that a GM would or should persecute a player--a paying customer--who bought the books to play the game and is obeying the rules in the books he bought is outrageous!
Here I am discussing an attack of opportunity feat and saying it should be treated like an attack of opportunity feat
Is that a thing now, an "attack of opportunity feat"?
Well sure, there are lots of feats that allow you to make attacks of opportunity more often than you normally would, especially by adding to that list of things that provoke attacks of opportunity.
I don't know that Attack of Opportunity Feat is an official game term, but I think you know what I meant.
According to this post by the author, Bodyguard is only intended to use the AoO resource (hence the wording "use an AoO") rather than abide by all the rules involving AoO (which would presumably be "make an AoO"):
Jason Nelson wrote:
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. I had thought about just making it an immediate action, but that limits it to once per round and takes your im/swift action. I figured that was an appropriate mechanic for In Harm's Way, but the defensive bonus of AA was modest enough that I thought it entirely fair to not limit it that way.
But Jason Nelson would be the first person to tell you that his opinion is just opinion.
Jason Nelson wrote:
If you are playing PFS or any other RAW rules campaign, the above opinion is merely that and carries no official weight.
Whatever his intention was when he wrote Bodyguard, what he wrote didn't go far enough to create a new way of using Attacks of Opportunity without making attacks of opportunity or of making attacks of opportunity where none are provoked, and that means we are forced to
Weirdo wrote:
abide by all the rules involving AoO (which would presumably be "make an AoO")
Because, Weirdo, as you said,
Weirdo wrote:
This is not definitive
Something important, I think, is being forgotten here. You don't play this game with the authors' imaginations. You play with the authors' rules. You play with your own imagination! When a player thinks of new ways to play the game that the authors did not think of, that is not only elevating the game, but is the very heart and soul of the game!
Nothing about Paizo Publishing was intended by the creator of the game, namely E. Gary Gygax, the inventor of Dungeons and Dragons, the game Pathfinder is based on which Paizo is allowed to use by virtue of the Open Gaming License. Pathfinder would never even have existed if we all insisted upon remaining slaves to the authors' intentions.
The explanation NOT allowing Body Guard to provoke Paired Opportunist is consistent with RAW.
Bodyguard: 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.
Paired Opportunist: 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).
-Monster attacks Tank.
-Bodyguard uses BG to use AA on Tank. (GM: Is he close enough to AA? Yes. Does he have an available AOO? Yes.) BG makes the attack roll. Beats a 10 AC. Done. Tank gets AC from Aid Another.
-Tank wants to use PO as both Tank and BG has the feat. (GM: Did the enemy provoke? No. There was no action taken that provokes. PO doesn't fire off)
By your own admission you are inferring "provoke" from Bodyguard because it allows "use" of an AOO to Aid Another, not based on the actions of the opponent. This is not RAW; however it is a reasonable interpretation worthy of an FAQ to avoid ambiguity.
If allowed:
If allowed it will change the scope of the game substantially making melee types stronger as AOO's become more commonplace for taking actions that don't provoke. This means heavier swings will be more in demand and even more melee's will take PO to use those additional AOO's effectively. It also means melee types will bunch together more making them more vulnerable to AOE's, much to caster's delight. It will also make combat more complex as the feat combination becomes commonplace slowing the table more. In short: It makes a game of rocket tag even worse.
GM response: More casters, less tanky bad guys. Minions no longer attack so much as run forward to threaten. (they need to stay alive long enough for the caster to do something so they don't attack on their turns and also make use of the BG/PO feat combination). Knowing this you move past the minions provoking them, they make an AOO (which gets Bodyguarded by your buddy), allowing you an AOO via PO, but his buddy BG's him, and uses PO to Attack you, which gets Bodyguarded by your buddy,... Two handed DEX build suddenly become king and we have the equivalent of multiple readied actions every time an opponent swings. IMO, this is not a game the majority of people want to play.
In response to the Ad Hominem:
Lastly, you aren't limited by the authors imagination, and for the record no one has stated you were; you are limited by the constraints of your Campaign organizer/GM. Which is exactly my point all along and subject to GM discretion.
I also feel you are incorrect in your assessment stating this expands the world for possible builds. If a feat becomes overpowered, it doesn't expand the build options as much as it limits them as you see less diversity overall. I think everyone is in agreement diversity is a good thing!
His opinion (RAI) does not clarify the RAW, but is also doesn't mean that the opposite is true. It simply means that the RAW is still unclear.
In those situations, I find RAI very helpful in informing how I think the rule should work - how I prefer it to work at my table. For example, in this case the RAI makes the feat more generally useful (because it can be used do defend against ranged attacks or in other situations where you don't threaten the attacker). I find that preferable to your interpretation where the feat is less generally useful but can be really powerful in a particular build. As Grey_Mage said, that can actually be limiting because the variety of builds in which you'll see Bodyguard will decrease.
I'm also a little confused about why you're all of a sudden appealing to player imagination when your previous argument seemed to be that the combo was "Rules legal." If you don't want to be enslaved to the authors' intentions, why do you want to be enslaved to RAW?
I'm a little confused: which Ad Hominem are you answering for? This one?
Grey_Mage wrote:
responses to others lead me to believe you will argue your point to a GM to the point of someone taking it personal.
This one?
Grey_Mage wrote:
This in no way proves your point, as a matter of fact it could be construed as bullying
This one?
Grey_Mage wrote:
"I found a loophole mechanic, I know is an unintended exploit, but I am going to use it despite upsetting other players and GMs" isn't helping your cause.
This one?
Grey_Mage wrote:
Understand that I'm not making an accusation, I merely ask you apply the introspective question of "If the whole society were like me, what kind of society would it be?"
This one?
Grey_Mage wrote:
these mechanics have both been published 5 years without these shenanigans
This one?
Grey_Mage wrote:
your interpretation is specifically strained and biased towards wanting it to work.
Or are you answering for this one?
Grey_Mage wrote:
Society is a shared experience, and if a player insists it revolves around them, I will ask them to leave, or I will.
For all the forbearance I have shown vis a vis your extensive ad hominem attacks I admit they have not gone unfelt, and I do appreciate your effort to answer for them. But I must say you have not yet covered your check.
I'm a little confused: which Ad Hominem are you answering for? This one?
Grey_Mage wrote:
responses to others lead me to believe you will argue your point to a GM to the point of someone taking it personal.
If someone states you are wrong and you internalize it, you are by definition taking it personal. I believe I have just been proven right, and it gives me no comfort.
I think you are wrong in your interpretation. I say that without inferring you are a bad player or person. The only cause I have of concern is your assertion your interpretation MUST be allowed at a PFS table.
As I now expect this thread to be closed/deleted, I will re-iterate this via personal message. I have been on the receiving end of multiple people saying my interpretation is wrong so I understand how it can feel.
If this is any way contentious, it is because from your posts I expect contention if we met at the table as I your GM. Make no mistake, I meant everything that was said, however there is no judgement there. Although I admit it is easy to place those context to my words especially in hindsight.
I have repeatedly stated, this is worthy of an FAQ, meaning your arguments have merit despite my disagreement with them.
The idea that raw can also only say one thing is silly.
That might be true. And if it isn't, it's mostly true. In the volumes of Pathfinder rules, there may indeed be some passage of it that indeed only has 1 interpretation.
For my part, I am not saying that in principle RAW can only ever say one thing or even that it can ever only say one thing. I am saying rather that a certain interpretation of RAW is legal, and therefore, players have the right to build characters based on that, and GMs may, and perhaps even must, enforce the rules that way. Even in cases where I believe that not only am I right but someone else is wrong, I am open to the idea that there can be somewhere out there, the existence of a correct, alternate interpretation.
But several other contributors have brought forth interpretations that are very different but defensible. If that is the case, it create a situation that is confusing for players and IMPOSSIBLE for GMs. So many of us have called for clarification.
I hope you have added or will add your voice to ours with a click on the FAQ button.
By your own admission you are inferring "provoke" from Bodyguard because it allows "use" of an AOO to Aid Another,
Yes. Aid Another is an attack. Bodyguard says you may "use an attack of opportunity to attempt to aid another." Which means you may "use an attack of opportunity to" make an attack, which means you may make an attack of opportunity.
Grey_Mage wrote:
not based on the actions of the opponent.
No.
Bodyguard's attack of opportunity is provoked when your ally is attacked. I have asserted that an attack upon your ally implies an attacker: the "opponent." It would the opponent who provokes the Attack of Opportunity to Aid another. The flavor text of the Bodyguard Feat even uses the words swift strikes. The Aid Another attempt is directed at that opponent. I further believe it to be implicit that one attacks opponents and not allies.
Grey_Mage wrote:
however it is a reasonable interpretation worthy of an FAQ to avoid ambiguity.
If allowed it will change the scope of the game substantially making melee types stronger as AOO's become more commonplace for taking actions that don't provoke. This means heavier swings will be more in demand and even more melee's will take PO to use those additional AOO's effectively.
I'm not too worried about this happening. I had a character with Snake Fang, Tactician, and Paired Opportunist and even though I made a point of letting players know that my character gives out Attacks of Opportunity, disappointingly few Pathfinder Characters ever formed up on the same opponents my character was threatening, and she gave out disappointingly few Attacks of Opportunity.
Perhaps this is because AoO builds are somewhat rare and exotic character builds.
Grey_Mage wrote:
It also means melee types will bunch together more making them more vulnerable to AOE's, much to caster's delight.
Or maybe this is the reason why. Many experienced players are reluctant to line their characters up in what we call "Lightning Bolt Formation!"
Grey_Mage wrote:
If a feat becomes overpowered, it doesn't expand the build options as much as it limits them as you see less diversity overall.
But for the reasons we both have given, I don't think it is necessarily the case at all that my interpretation of Bodyguard is broken or will result in less diversity. It is a neat tactical trick that only works under certain circumstances that don't arise as often as one might think. And when when the tactic is used, there is a readily available, and well understood countermeasure.
Meanwhile, this interpretation leads to a diminishing of the Bodyguard Feat in what is probably its intended purpose of improving allies' Armor Class. As an Attack of Opportunity Feat, it only would work if you are threatening your opponent and the text of Bodyguard specifies that you must be adjacent to your ally. And that would imply that BOTH must be in play for the Feat to work. Since you would be making attacks of opportunity, you generally wouldn't be able to use Bodyguard against opponents with Ranged attaacks or with Ranged attacks of your own. You could do it a little bit if you had the Snapshot Feats, but even then your range is severely limited. Gwen Smith is the first one on this thread to raise these concerns, I believe.
It's kind of interesting that some people believe that Bodyguard as an Attack of Opportunity Feat makes Bodyguard overpowered, but some people feel like it nerfs the Feat.
I'm confused by your use of the term "legal." I would only describe something as legal by RAW if it is unambiguous.
At first I thought your argument was that this case was indeed unambiguous and the people who disagreed with you were breaking the rules to fit how they wanted the rules to work. (Hence statements like "if Mr. Nelson doesn't like it, he can have the Design Team change the rules. Because right now, the rules are clear.")
Are you saying that you initially thought it was unambiguous but now agree that there is ambiguity?
Or are you using a different interpretation of "rules legal" meaning "if a rules interpretation can be defended within the rules, the player has a right to use that interpretation, regardless of ambiguity that creates other defensible readings"?
Or something else?
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I further believe it to be implicit that one attacks opponents and not allies.
Healing bomb still requires a direct hit - and therefore attack roll - despite the fact that it's clearly intended to be targeted at an ally. This is on top of situations where it might be beneficial to use a drag or reposition maneuver on an ally (usually because the ally is immobilized).
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
It's kind of interesting that some people believe that Bodyguard as an Attack of Opportunity Feat makes Bodyguard overpowered, but some people feel like it nerfs the Feat.
Both, and that's why I don't like it. Your interpretation nerfs the feat in most builds but makes it overpowered in a particular build. I'd rather see it consistently useful.
Ad Hominems:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Grey_Mage wrote:
In response to the Ad Hominem:
I'm a little confused: which Ad Hominem are you answering for?
This one:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Something important, I think, is being forgotten here. You don't play this game with the authors' imaginations. You play with the authors' rules. You play with your own imagination! When a player thinks of new ways to play the game that the authors did not think of, that is not only elevating the game, but is the very heart and soul of the game!
You are implying here that people who disagree with you lack imagination, and that's fighting words in an RPG forum.
Grey_Mage wrote:
I think you are wrong in your interpretation. I say that without inferring you are a bad player or person. The only cause I have of concern is your assertion your interpretation MUST be allowed at a PFS table.
If you want to avoid implying that someone is a bad player, then avoid telling them to reflect on the question: "If the whole society were like me, what kind of society would it be?" Because saying that Scott needs to reflect on this implies that it would be a bad thing if everyone were like Scott and that Scott should adjust his behavior accordingly. Which communicates that you think Scott is, if not a bad person, at least behaving badly.
You are implying here that people who disagree with you lack imagination, and that's fighting words in an RPG forum.
That is not what I was saying at all. I was misunderstood. What I was saying is that we are not beholden to the authors' imaginations, the authors' intentions. That this is a game where we are supposed let our imaginations soar, not have them shackled to one man's vision. I want to believe that is the LAST thing EGG would have wanted.
That was a call for all of us to free our imaginations from the yoke of supposed expectations, not a comment on who has an imagination and who doesn't. Any impression that I gave you to that effect was in error, and for that, I apologize.
If you want to avoid implying that someone is a bad player...
I commend you on your principled stance of taking offense to offensive behavior, and not just at offensive behavior directed at you. I hope that doesn't come across as condescending, but what you are doing is rare on these forums.
It may interest you to know that Grey_Mage and I have made our peace in private, and if no further ad hominem attacks continue, I consider the matter closed if she does, and I look forward to fun and lively debate with her on this and other topics in the future.
I feel she is at liberty to discuss in public anything discussed that has been discussed between us in private, but just in case there is anything she is feeling private about, I will leave any further disclosure to her.
The idea that raw can also only say one thing is silly.
That might be true. And if it isn't, it's mostly true. In the volumes of Pathfinder rules, there may indeed be some passage of it that indeed only has 1 interpretation.
Every time i think i found one the rules discussion brings it up...
Quote:
For my part, I am not saying that in principle RAW can only ever say one thing or even that it can ever only say one thing. I am saying rather that a certain interpretation of RAW is legal, and therefore, players have the right to build characters based on that, and GMs may, and perhaps even must, enforce the rules that way.
Absolutely not.
Rules adjudication is the DMs job, not the players. DMs have no obligation to accept whatever interpretation a player can come up with Players are infamous for coming up with logic twisting, rules lawyering arguments that "prove" that their overpowered concept works.
Players have an obligation to either ask a DM how these things work, or to avoid these areas all together. If you go for a gray area you should expect no as a default.
Beating the dm over the head with the rules takes a rock solid argument going directly out of the book, and even then is something you hold back for important rules. Its not for an argument like this thats well passed questionable.
Quote:
I hope you have added or will add your voice to ours with a click on the FAQ button.
Much like the jump a pit question i will not. This seems to be leaning pretty heavily towards a consensus.
I'm also a little confused about why you're all of a sudden appealing to player imagination when your previous argument seemed to be that the combo was "Rules legal." If you don't want to be enslaved to the authors' intentions, why do you want to be enslaved to RAW?
Good question.
I wouldn't characterize my appeal to player imagination as “all of a sudden.” I have always been a proponent of player imagination. I believe that GMs use "intent of the rules" as a justification for capriciously nerfing player characters. But if as Jason Nelson says you have to have to play by RAW, not only do the players have to obey the RAW, but so do the GMs. Those shackles of RAW are also a foundation you can build your character upon. Those volumes of new rules open new avenues for creativity. But not if any random PFSGM can capriciously make suppositions about Intent and make those avenues unsafe. Adherence to RAW is the best way available to protect the players and to protect the Pathfinder Product.
Building a character takes a lot of planning, and it can't be done if the player can't rely on the rules to work without some minimum of consistency. Honestly, it barely matters to me what those rules are, as long as I know what they are. I might use a buckler and weapon. I might use Improved Shield Bash. I might get an Animated Shield, and which I pick for which character depends on the particulars of the rules and the character concept. But I can't use the same gold I spent on a Quickdraw, Throwing Shield and a Blinkback Belt to buy a +1 Buckler and a +1 Kukri, and I can't use that gold to buy a +1 Bashing Klar with a +1 Weapon Enchantment. I can't take Quickdraw with the same Feat Slot I might have used to take Improved Shield Bash. I need to make these decisions many levels in advance, and I can't make these decisions effectively at all if I can't rely on PFS Gamemasters to abide by a common set of rules. When I'm playing in somebody's homespun campaign, I can vet my build before I even start playing. I can walk him through the whole thing, and he can declare anything legal or illegal or slightly alter the rules all he wants, and then I can alter my build so that it fits in his world. In that case, I only need to expect the GM be consistent with himself, and most GMs are.
A PFSGM shouldn't go beyond the RAW and take it upon himself to do more than make sure that what his players are doing is legal because doing that destroys the foundation of trust that makes creative character building possible. It forces all of us to play in fear, and not the good kind of fear. It's one thing to turn the lock with your Skeleton Key, praying that the Rogue's Perception Check was high enough to Detect any traps. It's quite another to vet your character build with 2 5-Star GMs and a Venture Lieutentent only to have a different Venture Lieutenent RULE your character out of existence 2 months later. That sucks.
Advanced Players' Guide wrote:
$39.99
It's not like I don't get that GMs are judges, and judges have to adjudicate, but players are customers of Paizo, and customers have rights. More than rights, we have power. Jason Nelson, Mark Seifter, and Mike Brock want our money. Claudekennilol, Grey_Mage, myself, and some 30 other paying customers want their product to be reliable.
It's quite another to vet your character build with 2 5-Star GMs and a Venture Lieutentent only to have a different Venture Lieutenent RULE your character out of existence 2 months later. That sucks.
That was when you tried to make the argument that unarmed strikes didn't relegate your natural attacks to secondary weapons?
It's quite another to vet your character build with 2 5-Star GMs and a Venture Lieutentent only to have a different Venture Lieutenent RULE your character out of existence 2 months later. That sucks.
That was when you tried to make the argument that unarmed strikes didn't relegate your natural attacks to secondary weapons?
No, that was a completely different situation. The point you are referring to was a very minor feature of any character build of mine, making the difference between whether my character would take 8 attacks in a round or just 7. No GM's ruling either way would have had a substantial impact on either any of my builds or the how I played them.
I comprehensively defeated every rules-based counter argument you made on that topic, and if you want to go again, that's fine, but pick some other thread to do it on. Because this thread is about Paired Opportunist and Bodyguard. Broaching the subject at all is derailing to this thread.
That being said, I don't super mind explaining what the situation was in more detail, although I do feel like the sharing those details bring this thread off-topic as well.
No, that was a completely different situation. The point you are referring to was a very minor feature of any character build of mine, making the difference between whether my character would take 8 attacks in a round or just 7. No GM's ruling either way would have had a substantial impact on either any of my builds or the how I played them.
I comprehensively defeated every rules-based counter argument you made on that topic
You very much did not. And that's a huge problem with insisting that the players interpretation be not only allowed, but required. Any player can make the above claim on any argument no matter how bad and demand that it be taken as a rule of the game or, worse, insist that its not rules questionable at all and slip it by a dm who has better things to do than try to audit all seven characters while they're trying to run a game.
If something seems too good to be true it probably is. If something is questionable assume the answer is no. If something is a 50 50 split or worse, don't build your character around it, and you'd be better off ditching the idea entirely. If you're the ONLY person that reads a rule a certain way.. you're probably reading it wrong.
If this keeps happening with characters that you build its probably not the rules or the society that's crazy. (well, they are crazy but they're probably not wrong...)
Quote:
That being said, I don't super mind explaining what the situation was in more detail, although I do feel like the sharing those details bring this thread off-topic as well.
Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack. The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity; for each size category the attacking creature is larger than the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler takes a –2 penalty on this roll. If her result is greater than the attacking creature's result, the creature's attack automatically misses. The swashbuckler must declare the use of this ability after the creature's attack is announced, but before its attack roll is made. Upon performing a successful parry and if she has at least 1 panache point, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action make an attack against the creature whose attack she parried, provided that creature is within her reach.
I just saw the newly released errata regarding the Advanced Class Guide, and it seems that Opportune Parry and Riposte no longer exists. So it seems neither does any example of "using an attack of opportunity" that is not "making an attack of opportunity."
Advanced Class Guide Errata, released July 22 wrote:
Page 90—In the Daring Champion archetype, in the Panache and Deeds ability, remove “opportune parry and riposte,”.
Are you sarcastically implying that Swashbucklers aren't worth considering, or was that an honest mistake?
Huh?
This is a rules forum. I'm discussing the rules. I am not giving advice on character classes. I am sharing an update regarding a point that was brought up on this thread.
Are you sarcastically implying that Swashbucklers aren't worth considering, or was that an honest mistake?
Huh?
This is a rules forum. I'm discussing the rules. I am not giving advice on character classes. I am sharing an update regarding a point that was brought up on this thread.
What are you getting at?
This doesn't affect the Swashbuckler, it removes an ability from the Daring Champion Archetype.
I just saw the newly released errata regarding the Advanced Class Guide, and it seems that Opportune Parry and Riposte no longer exists. So it seems neither does any example of "using an attack of opportunity" that is not "making an attack of opportunity."
Advanced Class Guide Errata, released July 22 wrote:
Page 90—In the Daring Champion archetype, in the Panache and Deeds ability, remove “opportune parry and riposte,”.
At least, none that I know of.
It was removed from an archtype for giving away the swashbucklers best toy (and well, being a better swashbuckler than the swashbuckler). it still exists for swashbucklers.
I just saw the newly released errata regarding the Advanced Class Guide, and it seems that Opportune Parry and Riposte no longer exists. So it seems neither does any example of "using an attack of opportunity" that is not "making an attack of opportunity."
Advanced Class Guide Errata, released July 22 wrote:
Page 90—In the Daring Champion archetype, in the Panache and Deeds ability, remove “opportune parry and riposte,”.
At least, none that I know of.
It was removed from an archtype for giving away the swashbucklers best toy (and well, being a better swashbuckler than the swashbuckler). it still exists for swashbucklers.
Forseti wrote:
Are you sarcastically implying that Swashbucklers aren't worth considering, or was that an honest mistake?
I wouldn't characterize my appeal to player imagination as “all of a sudden.” I have always been a proponent of player imagination.
It was sudden within the context of this thread.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I believe that GMs use "intent of the rules" as a justification for capriciously nerfing player characters.
Sometimes it's a nerf, sometimes it's a buff - like the Titan Mauler that Jason Nelson designed with the intent that it be able to wield oversize weapons one-handed, but didn't actually do that when the RAW settled. I house-ruled that one in line with the original intent. It's also possible to nerf things for reasons that aren't capricious. In this particular case as I've pointed out, while RAI limits the combo power potential of Bodyguard, it makes the feat alone stronger because there are fewer limits on when you can use it.
If you've never encountered a GM who can consider RAI thoughtfully and fairly, I'm sorry.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
But if as Jason Nelson says you have to have to play by RAW, not only do the players have to obey the RAW, but so do the GMs. Those shackles of RAW are also a foundation you can build your character upon. Those volumes of new rules open new avenues for creativity. But not if any random PFSGM can capriciously make suppositions about Intent and make those avenues unsafe. Adherence to RAW is the best way available to protect the players and to protect the Pathfinder Product.
...
A PFSGM shouldn't go beyond the RAW and take it upon himself to do more than make sure that what his players are doing is legal because doing that destroys the foundation of trust that makes creative character building possible. It forces all of us to play in fear, and not the good kind of fear. It's one thing to turn the lock with your Skeleton Key, praying that the Rogue's Perception Check was high enough to Detect any traps. It's quite another to vet your character build with 2 5-Star GMs and a Venture Lieutentent only to have a different Venture Lieutenent RULE your character out of existence 2 months later. That sucks.
It does suck. Unfortunately, there are places where the RAW foundation is unsteady before either the player or the GM sets foot on it. The best advice I've seen is not to build a character on such a foundation.
I just saw the newly released errata regarding the Advanced Class Guide, and it seems that Opportune Parry and Riposte no longer exists. So it seems neither does any example of "using an attack of opportunity" that is not "making an attack of opportunity."
Advanced Class Guide Errata, released July 22 wrote:
Page 90—In the Daring Champion archetype, in the Panache and Deeds ability, remove “opportune parry and riposte,”.
At least, none that I know of.
I just stumbled across another example: Kirin Path.
If you've never encountered a GM who can consider RAI thoughtfully and fairly, I'm sorry.
I wouldn't go that far, but to my experience, when a GM begins a statement with "I believe the intent of the rules is..." That's code that a GM is about to rule against you with no justification.
Weirdo wrote:
It does suck. Unfortunately, there are places where the RAW foundation is unsteady before either the player or the GM sets foot on it. The best advice I've seen is not to build a character on such a foundation.
There are. But I really think I have shown a steady RAW foundation for treating Bodyguard as an Attack of Opportunity Feat.
I just saw the newly released errata regarding the Advanced Class Guide, and it seems that Opportune Parry and Riposte no longer exists. So it seems neither does any example of "using an attack of opportunity" that is not "making an attack of opportunity."
Advanced Class Guide Errata, released July 22 wrote:
Page 90—In the Daring Champion archetype, in the Panache and Deeds ability, remove “opportune parry and riposte,”.
At least, none that I know of.
I just stumbled across another example: Kirin Path.
Good example.
Kirin Path Feat Benefits wrote:
While using Kirin Style against a creature you have identified using that feat, if the creature ends its turn within your threatened area, you can spend a use of your attacks of opportunity that round to move up to 5 feet times your Intelligence modifier (minimum 1).
The difference between Kirin Path and Bodyguard though, is that when you are using Kirin Path, you aren't making an attack: you are moving. With Bodyguard, you are attempting the Aid Another Action, and that is an attack.
I concede that Kirin Path and Opportune Parry and Riposte are 2 examples of "using attacks of opportunity" not to "make attacks of opportunity." But both of these examples have things that Bodyguard doesn't. Opportune' implicitly declares that the action is not an AoO, and that is supported by the fact that the action costs a Panache Point whereas Attacks of Opportunity are supposed to be free. And the action Kirin Path allows is not an Attack at all, just a Move, so that wouldn't be an Attack of Opportunity.
." But both of these examples have things that Bodyguard doesn't. Opportune' implicitly declares that the action is not an AoO
Wait wait wait. Your entire thing is that nothing is implicit, everything is raw. What exactly is the difference between Opportune parry and body guard here?
Its pretty clear that there are game mechanics that have you spend AOOs without anyone provoking. Without anything in this feat combo explicit calling out that it provokes , saying its not provoking is a reasonable conclusion.
Wait wait wait. Your entire thing is that nothing is implicit
No, it isn't.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
, everything is raw.
Yes, it is.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What exactly is the difference between Opportune parry and body guard here?
If you review my posts on this thread, you will find I am not contradicting myself.
Opportune Parry and Riposte wrote:
...when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack. The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity
"As if she were making an attack of opportunity" implies that she isn't. Also, if you review the Core Rulebook you will see that it says an Attack of Opportunity is made for free, and Opportune Parry and Riposte is made at the cost of a Panache point. These things imply that what is going on is not in fact an attack of opportunity. And this is RAW
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its pretty clear that there are game mechanics that have you spend AOOs without anyone provoking.
Well, there appear to be game mechanics that use the number of attacks of opportunity like those granted by Combat Reflexes as some sort of resource pool where they can be spent, and no attack of opportunity is actually being made. If that's what you mean, then okay.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Without anything in this feat combo explicit calling out that it provokes , saying its not provoking is a reasonable conclusion.
No, it is not. Just because exceptions to the rules happen, that by no means implies they are happening this time. The "reasonable conclusion" is that the general rules for making attacks of opportunity apply unless some exception is stated somehow. Opportune Parry and Riposte states this implicitly with the words "as if she were making an attack of opportunity" and the fact that Attacks of Opportunity are supposed to be fee, and OP&R costs a Panache Point. Kirin Path implies that because no attack is being made at all with that Feat; no attack implies no attack of opportunity. This is not to say I am not very bothered that these exceptions are implied and not explained, but there they are. That is closely related to why more than 30 people, including myself have requested a clarifying FAQ and why I encourage you to do the same.
The Bodyguard Feat description does not even imply an exception. You are using your attack of opportunity to make an attack. That implies you are making an attack of opportunity as per the Core Rulebook. It doesn't say you aren't making an attack of opportunity, and that means you are. The only thing the Core Rulebook allows for triggering attacks of opportunity is "provoking." Bodyguard triggers because the attack of opportunity is provoked. The fact that the Feat description does not use the word "provoke" doesn't matter. The Core Rulebook uses the word "provoke," and that means that Bodyguard has to state somehow that the attack of opportunity is being made somehow without provoking.
I just haven't seen it, and nobody on this thread has been able to demonstrate it.
I just haven't seen it, and nobody on this thread has been able to demonstrate it.
No one can show you anything because your ideas require absolute disproof and anyone elses require absolute citation. That's not a legitimate way to have a conversation.
Quote:
If you review my posts on this thread, you will find I am not contradicting myself.
I have reviewed your posts on this thread, multiple times, and you are contradicting yourself.
Quote:
"As if she were making an attack of opportunity" implies that she isn't.
Or it implies that they are.
Quote:
Also, if you review the Core Rulebook you will see
Stop that.
Constantly, and i mean CONSTANTLY, implying that people haven't read the rules, haven't read the thread, and don't know them as well as you do really starts to grate after a while, especially given the lack of substance to back this up.
Quote:
that it says an Attack of Opportunity is made for free
Citation? An AoO is made at the cost of an AoO (your only one for the round baring other abilities)
Quote:
and Opportune Parry and Riposte is made at the cost of a Panache point. These things imply that what is going on is not in fact an attack of opportunity. And this is RAW
You thinking that X implies Y is not raw.
Quote:
The fact that the Feat description does not use the word "provoke" doesn't matter. The Core Rulebook uses the word "provoke," and that means that Bodyguard has to state somehow that the attack of opportunity is being made somehow without provoking.
Just like parry/riposte. Parry riposte having a cost to it is a complete non sequitur.
You're making an assumption of perfection. You're assuming that the rules are so coherent that if an argument can be made that something works a certain way that thats the end of it: that arguments to the contrary don't matter at all and that is a very VERY bad way to try to read rules this complicated and contradictory.
Raw there is no provoke. You take an AoO anyway. Abilities that rely on provoking won't trigger. thats what most people here have read. Thats what the person who wrote it said. Thats probably how dms looking at it are going to run it. If you want your interpretation of raw to be law you're on the wrong side of the screen.
"As if she were making an attack of opportunity" implies that she isn't. Also, if you review the Core Rulebook you will see that it says an Attack of Opportunity is made for free, and Opportune Parry and Riposte is made at the cost of a Panache point. These things imply that what is going on is not in fact an attack of opportunity. And this is RAW
Cost of a panache point, or any other external resource, has no bearing on whether an AoO is used from a provoking or non-provoking action. We have to look to other parts of the rules to make any kind of determination like that. But the expenditure itself is not a determining rules statement in that regard.
Combat Reflexes (Mythic) wrote:
Benefit: You can make any number of additional attacks of opportunity per round. As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to, until the start of your next turn, make attacks of opportunity against foes you've already made attacks of opportunity against this round if they provoke attacks of opportunity from you by moving.
Here we are spending additional resources - it doesn't make these non-provoked AoO's.
"Provocation allows for attacks of opportunity to be made. Therefore, all attacks of opportunity are provoked."
That's faulty logic. And because that is faulty logic, provocation can't be assumed when it's not stated outright.
No. Not at all. There is nothing faulty about my interpretation of Bodyguard. Pretty much everything I have said about Bodyguard is available for review on this thread.
Is the logic faulty? Show me!
It says "attack of opportunity" in the feat description, so the Attack of Opportunity rules apply unless specific exception is being made, and it isn't. That's what it boils down to.
Is it? Show me!
Because we are talking about attacks of opportunity, and because the Core Rulebook says that attacks of opportunity trigger only when provoked, that means that when Bodyguard triggers, it only does so upon being provoked. That's what it boils down to.
"As if she were making an attack of opportunity" implies that she isn't.
Or it implies that they are....
Just like parry/riposte. Parry riposte having a cost to it is a complete non sequitur.
bbangerter wrote:
Cost of a panache point, or any other external resource, has no bearing on whether an AoO is used from a provoking or non-provoking action.
I did concede Opportune Parry and Riposte as a counter example of some Feat or other ability like possibly Bodyguard--if not actually Bodyguard--might allow making attacks of opportunity where none was provoked.
But always thought it was a very poorly worded example, and I never liked it. But I don't see how I can reject it as a counter example.
You obviously don't like it either. That's fine. Stop using it. Big Norse Wolf, you now have no longer have that as an example of a Feat or Class ability where you can make attacks of opportunity.
I concede that Opportune Parry and Riposte is a poor counter example, and does not support your case.
"Provocation allows for attacks of opportunity to be made. Therefore, all attacks of opportunity are provoked."
That's faulty logic. And because that is faulty logic, provocation can't be assumed when it's not stated outright.
No. Not at all. There is nothing faulty about my interpretation of Bodyguard. Pretty much everything I have said about Bodyguard is available for review on this thread.
Is the logic faulty? Show me!
Your reasoning: Provoking lets you take an AOO, this means that to take an AOO it must be provoked.
"Provocation allows for attacks of opportunity to be made. Therefore, all attacks of opportunity are provoked."
That's faulty logic. And because that is faulty logic, provocation can't be assumed when it's not stated outright.
No. Not at all. There is nothing faulty about my interpretation of Bodyguard. Pretty much everything I have said about Bodyguard is available for review on this thread.
Is the logic faulty? Show me!
Your reasoning: Provoking lets you take an AOO, this means that to take an AOO it must be provoked.
Alright, since we have finally come to agreement that declaring all AOO to be provoked is false, we can now move to our final affirmation. Since Bodyguard does not call any provocation, even if it let you make an AOO, there is no base by RAW to assume provocation. Thus, no provocation, no Paired Opportunist.
Quod Est Demonstrandum
"Provocation allows for attacks of opportunity to be made. Therefore, all attacks of opportunity are provoked."
That's faulty logic. And because that is faulty logic, provocation can't be assumed when it's not stated outright.
No. Not at all. There is nothing faulty about my interpretation of Bodyguard. Pretty much everything I have said about Bodyguard is available for review on this thread.
Is the logic faulty? Show me!
Your reasoning: Provoking lets you take an AOO, this means that to take an AOO it must be provoked.
That is not my reasoning at all! I'm getting this from the Core Rulebook!
The Core Rulebook uses the word "provoke" to refer to all kinds of ways of being entitled to an attack of opportunity.
Core Rulebook, Attacks of Opportunity wrote:
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity....
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.
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.
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.
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.
Remember that even actions that normally provoke attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule.
"Provoke" is just the word the Core Rulebook uses for providing the opportunity to make an attack of opportunity, and it doesn't even provide for some other way. The "reasoning" you are attacking isn't even reasoning at all! It's direct observation of the Core Rulebook!
