Doomed Hero wrote:
So the intent of the designer of the feat means nothing. Gotcha.
Yes, absolutely, unequivocally, without qualification. RAI is only useful when the rules aren't clear, which isn't the case here. ESPECIALLY when, in the SAME POST, said designer included his RAW interpretation of the feat he actually wrote, not just the intended mechanic of the one he meant to.
Doomed Hero wrote:
I'll just keep using the feat the way it was meant to be used. You can use it in the way that renders it completely useless. Have fun with that.
You are mistaking advocacy for preference. It doesn't matter if I like it or not, that's how the feat works. I don't like that I can't turn my standard action into a second 5ft step. That doesn't mean it isn't a rule.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: What you don't know, is the RAI regarding the feat. Bodyguard is supposed to circumvent these restrictions, and unfortunately, doesn't actually say that. The developer of the Bodyguard feat himself, says all of this. It's also been FAQ'd to hell, given how many posts and threads have been made to provide an answer, and there still isn't a FAQ for it. pH unbalanced wrote: The fact that the way that I read the rules is also apparently RAI is a nice bit of external validation, but that's all it is since it did not inform my initial reading. Whose intent? Would you settle for the intent of Jason Nelson, the Author of the Bodyguard Feat?
Jason Nelson at around post#56 wrote: If you are playing PFS or any other RAW rules campaign, the above opinion is merely that and carries no official weight. To honor the intent of the author of this Feat, you must abide by the Rules as Written.
Jason Nelson
Gray Mage wrote: Is using aid another outside bodyguard considered an attack? Yes
Core Rulebook, Special Attacks wrote: Aid Another…
Charge…
Combat Maneuvers…
Feint...
Gray Mage wrote: If so, against who? The opponent who you think will be attacking your ally.
Core Rulebook, Special Attacks, Aid Another wrote: 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, So, this answers your comment, pHunbalanced,
pH ubalanced wrote: My initial reading of the rules was that it was very clear that you don't need to threaten the attacker. I understand the interpretation that you do need to, and would never argue with a GM who wished to run it that way, but that's not how it works at my table. Yes, the Core Rulebook does indeed state clearly that you can only Aid Another as a Sepcial Attack when you are threatening your ally's opponent. I have not seen that Bodyguard specifically words an exception to this rule.
Gray Mage wrote: If it's an attack, can the enemy bodyguard or saving shield on the person im bodyguarding? Would this raise my target of ac 10? Does this make any sense thematically? I don't understand these questions.
Gray Mage wrote: No, because it's not an attack. It's a skill check vs dc 10 to aid another person in a relevant skill. Unless you are using it as an Action Taken in Combat such as described under the heading Special Attacks. In that case, It's an Attack Roll vs AC 10
Core Rulebook, Special Attacks, Aid Another wrote: You make an attack roll against AC 10. You raise an interesting point. Aid Another can be used completely outside the realm of combat altogether, say to assist a Rogue in disarming a trap. Thematically, you'd be doing things like laying out his tools for him, and taking the ¼ inch socket from him and giving him the 3”/16 one instead, you know, like a nurse helping the doctor during surgury. For a Diplomacy Check, Aid Another might consist of knocking the books out of the pretty girl's arms so that our hero has the opportunity to look all chivalrous by helping her pick them up.
If you were using Aid Another as a Skill and not as a Special Attack, you would NOT need to threaten the would-be attacker. But I don't think that using Aid Another as a Skill will let you improve your Ally's AC, and if you were using it this way, it would fall under “using a Skill,” and you would be provoking attacks of opportunity yourself for using a Skill in a Threatened Square.
Gray Mage wrote: If you role a 20 for your bodyguard does it count as a critical for the purposes of other teamwork feats? I don't think you can roll Criticals for Special Attacks. Can you roll a Critical for an a Trip attempt? An even better question: can you roll a Critical for a Sunder Attempt?
Gray Mage wrote: To interpret it as an attack leads to realms of absurdity we haven't vetted despite the large number of posts in this discussion. We are vetting it now. If we demonstrate that this is problematic enough, we may compel a an update to the rules in the form of an FAQ.
Stating the use of Aid Another as a Skill doesn't change how it operates in the Combat Section; if you were to use it to improve a Skill Check (i.e. Knowledges, Survival/Heal, etc.), you'd have to target an enemy (allies aren't eligible targets), be able to make an attack on said enemy, and that enemy must be in melee combat with a friend.
This makes using Aid Another outside of Combat impossible, because there are no (feasible) enemies. I mean, you could play the "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball" route, but that can't apply to every single situation. Plus, a lot of GMs would rule that you attacked a PC in order to Aid Another, it starts uncalled-for inter-party fights, and quite frankly it just collapses on itself. By that point, GM says "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies, and Aid Another is a stupid, nonsensible rule, so I'm disallowing it." I also can't even imagine how many PFS GMs are running the rules incorrectly: Better bring it to the PFS Coordinator's attention so that he can tell all the GMs they've been doing it wrong. /sarcasm
If I can't critically hit Special Attacks, then I can't Critically Hit on Charges, Combat Maneuvers that deal damage (such as Sunder), or Two-Weapon Fighting. I imagine there is more, such as attacks that are granted via abilities, spells, etc., but you get the point here.
Because AA is vs ac10 it's a skill check rather than an attack. It's not modified by any action other than the character trying to be helpful in the task assigned.
My earlier point is if it were an attack, you should be able to parry it, or bodyguard vs the bodyguard.
The question is who is the attack is against applies because it you are attacking your comrade with aid another, then the enemy should be able to bodyguard your ally to make it more difficult (this also makes no sense).
If it's an attack vs your opponent then they should be able to parry or avoid it with concealment miss chances... Ect which also makes no sense.
Grey_Mage wrote: Because AA is vs ac10 it's a skill check rather than an attack. It's not modified by any action other than the character trying to be helpful in the task assigned.
My earlier point is if it were an attack, you should be able to parry it, or bodyguard vs the bodyguard.
The question is who is the attack is against applies because it you are attacking your comrade with aid another, then the enemy should be able to bodyguard your ally to make it more difficult (this also makes no sense).
If it's an attack vs your opponent then they should be able to parry or avoid it with concealment miss chances... Ect which also makes no sense.
Because the AC to beat is 10 it's a skill check? What other skill checks are against AC? None. What other attacks are against AC (touch, flatfooted or otherwise)? Almost all of them (feint is the only exception I can think of offhand). Aid Another is an attack when it's against AC.
Sure, I suppose you could Bodyguard a Bodyguard, but that wouldn't effect the first bodyguard. The AC to beat is still 10. If you were to then attack the enemy on your next turn, it would have +2 AC.
Rejecting this interpretation as RAW based on it's consequences is a textbook logical fallacy (appeal to consequences).
Grey_Mage wrote: Because AA is vs ac10 it's a skill check rather than an attack. Vs AC 10 instead of vs DC 10 might not, but Aid Another in the Combat Section under the heading Special Attacks says you are making an attack roll!
Core Rulebook, Special Attacks, Aid Another wrote: You make an attack roll against AC 10. I said this already.
Grey_Mage wrote: If it's an attack vs your opponent then they should be able to parry or avoid it with concealment miss chances... which... makes no sense. It makes perfect sense to me.
But could you explain further: why do you have a problem conceptually with Aid Another being an Attack vis a vis defensive measures that can be taken against it such as Concealment, Opportune Parry and Riposte, etc?
Dallium wrote: Because the AC to beat is 10 it's a skill check? What other skill checks are against AC? None. What other attacks are against AC (touch, flatfooted or otherwise)? Almost all of them (feint is the only exception I can think of offhand). Aid Another is an attack when it's against AC. I think it is fair to say that the fact that the roll is made vs Armor Class strongly supports the position that the Aid Another Special Attack is an attack, but I hesitate to declare that there is no roll ever made against Armor Class that is not an attack. To quote
Ancient Goblin saying that wrote: "Never say never," Then his assistant said, "but didn't you just say 'never'?" The wise old Goblin answered, "Yes, but YOU said 'never' first!" His sophomoric assistant responded, "No, I didn't, and you've said it more than I have!"
His wise old mentor admitted he was right by dumping a bucket of pitch over his assistant's head and shattering a flask of Alchemist Fire on him, while the rest of the goblins cheered in the blaze and 4 more young goblins asked to be his new assistant.
Dallium wrote: Sure, I suppose you could Bodyguard a Bodyguard, but that wouldn't effect the first bodyguard. The AC to beat is still 10. If you were to then attack the enemy on your next turn, it would have +2 AC. So, if there were 4 opponents, 2 teams of 2, and 1 member of each team had Bodyguard. If the Non-Bodyguard-having Belligerent of Team 1, NBHB1 attacked the the Non-Bodyguard-having Belligerent of Team 2, then that would provoke an Attack of Opportunity from the Bodyguard-Having-Belligerent of Team 2 to improve NBHB2's AC, but that would in turn provoke an Attack of Opportunity from BHB1, to foil BHB2's attempt to improve NBHB2's AC, and if successful, BHB2 would need a 12 instead of a 10 to improve NBHB2's AC.
If bhb 1 and/or 2 had Paired Opportunist (and Tactician), their Attacks of Opportunity would then trigger Attacks of Opportunity from their nbhb teammates even if the Aid Another attempts were unsuccessful, since Paired Opportunist triggers when attacks of opportunity are provoked, not only when they score hits.
Dallium wrote: Rejecting this interpretation as RAW based on it's consequences is a textbook logical fallacy (appeal to consequences). Yeah, but remember that this thread exists not only for the purpose of sorting out the proper interpretation of the Bodyguard Feat, but also, even primarily, exists to express the need for a clarifying FAQ or erratum, as I called for.
So while the appeal to consequences fails to even comment on the correctness of your interpretation, it is nevertheless valid as a appeal for an official ruling of some sort.
Making an attack roll vs ac10 does not constitute an attack.
Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
This states an attack roll is made against the opponents ac and if higher you strike them for damage. Since neither of these criteria are met an aid another check vs ac10 clearly isn't an attack. By the admission of others it is a distraction which further removes it from attack language.
And yes I understand the language seems contradictory. When making a decision to interpret RAW, the GM often uses to rule of cool because it leads to a better game.
It has already been stated that this viewpoint will be brought to bear against PFS GMs and if they refer to this thread I wish to arm them with the consequences.
In the absence of clarification, GMs need to make a well informed decision for their game.
Come on Grey_Mage!
You can't use Aid Another unless you are in position to attack your ally's attacker.
You make an attack roll against your ally's attacker to Aid Another.
And,
Aid Another is listed in the Combat Section under the heading Special Attacks.
That last is all you need, but we have given you A LOT more!
Aid Another is an Attack. The rules say so.
I don't think you get a paired opportunity.
While you may be getting an attack of opportunity, it is not against the opponent. It is on fact just to aid another.
Nothing in the ability to aid another in combat to attack OR defend says your making an attack against a specific opponent.
And as such, since you don't have the specific opponent, you can't have an ally make a free attack.
The wording is very specific. You may make a roll to aid another's AC. Not to target an opponent.
At best, the only thing your ally may do now is gain a free attack against the number 10. Which, if successful, garners no bonus as they don't stack.
You are not targeting an opponent, therfore your partner can't either.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: You make an attack roll against your ally's attacker to Aid Another. It doesn't say that anywhere.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
After reading through these threads I am baffled.
Aid Another is not an attack of opportunity. Never has been. There are traits and feats that grant a bonus to Aid Another or Attacks of Opportunity. These bonus' are not interchangeable. How is it even possible that people believe they are one and the same? The deeper people go to justify their thin lines of logic the more desperate they sound. Why would anyone even want it to work this way?
Aid Another is an action that spends an Attack of Opportunity in the case of the Bodyguard feat. That's all it does. There is no triggering event for an Attack of Opportunity.
Again, simply baffled.
Forseti wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: You make an attack roll against your ally's attacker to Aid Another. It doesn't say that anywhere. Except in the description of Aid Another, you must mean.
Core Rulebook, Combat, Special Attacks, Aid Another wrote: interfering with an opponent. If you're in position to make a melee attack... You make an attack roll Cavall wrote: it is not against the opponent. It is on fact just to aid another. It is against the opponent. The description says what you are doing is "interfering with the attacker." You can't even do it unless you are Threatening the Attacker. And the thing it says you are doing is making an Attack Roll. And Aid Another is listed in the Core Rulebook under the heading Special Attacks, making it an attack, a special attack, but an attack nonetheless. Generally, attacks are directed against opponents, but Aid Another actually says so.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Correct. You are interfering with an attack. You are NOT making an attack against an opponent.
Therefore, no target.
To quote 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.
Note: Not to target an opponent. To improve AC against an attack by interfering with an attack. To IMPROVE THE ALLY. NOT ATTACK AN OPPONENT.
You are NOT attacking an opponent. You are attacking the number ten.
Shane LeRose wrote: After reading through these threads I am baffled.
Aid Another is not an attack of opportunity. Never has been. There are traits and feats that grant a bonus to Aid Another or Attacks of Opportunity. These bonus' are not interchangeable. How is it even possible that people believe they are one and the same? The deeper people go to justify their thin lines of logic the more desperate they sound. Why would anyone even want it to work this way?
Aid Another is an action that spends an Attack of Opportunity in the case of the Bodyguard feat. That's all it does. There is no triggering event for an Attack of Opportunity.
Again, simply baffled.
You are a little late to the party, Shane, but you are welcome. I summarized my position in post #166 on this thread. It's on page 4, about 10 posts down. It was in direct response to a request from King Of Anything. I summarize how Aid Another is an attack, and how that means "use an Attack of Opportunity" does indeed mean "make an attack of opportunity," how all attacks of opportunity are provoked, and how Aid Another is indeed a targeted attack. I think it will provide you with a good starting point for examining my arguments, allowing you to either be convinced upon explanation or if you do wish to attack them, attack them with due diligence.
Cavall wrote: Correct. You are interfering with an attack. False. You are interfering with the attacker, not the attack.
Core Rulebook, Combat, Special Attacks, Aid Another wrote: interfering with an opponent. Cavall wrote: You are NOT making an attack against an opponent.
Therefore, no target.
The target is the opponent. The you are attacking to interfere with the opponent, not to damage her directly, but it's still an attack targeted at the opponent.
Except that aid another doesn't target an opponent. At all.
It gives a flat bonus to AC or Attack to an ally.
Nothing in aid another states you target an opponent.
To quote:
"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."
Not attack someone. Not even target an opponent. Just give a flat bonus versus a flat number on the sheer chance something may happen.
The important thing to note is how it specifically states that while you're making an attack roll it is to aid an ally. Not to target an opponent.
Therefore paired opportunity isn't happening. Your ally can't attack something not being attacked. Except, once again, the number 10.
Shane LeRose wrote: After reading through these threads I am baffled.
Aid Another is not an attack of opportunity. Never has been. There are traits and feats that grant a bonus to Aid Another or Attacks of Opportunity. These bonus' are not interchangeable. How is it even possible that people believe they are one and the same? The deeper people go to justify their thin lines of logic the more desperate they sound. Why would anyone even want it to work this way?
Aid Another is an action that spends an Attack of Opportunity in the case of the Bodyguard feat. That's all it does. There is no triggering event for an Attack of Opportunity.
Again, simply baffled.
You're not the only one. At this point I'm treating the thread like morbid entertainment. It just keeps going...
There's no point in continuing this thread. It's just a repeat of the same arguements.
How this will end:
A. Devs waste a week's worth of FAQ time telling everyone that most people were right, that the conservative interpretation is right (which is you note is the way they go most of the time), and that Bodyguard uses an AoO as a pool and that no AoO is provoked.
B. Devs rule that it does provoke an AoO. Then, every author afterwards has to make sure they word their ability "just right" to prevent any RAW abuse, yet another rule to the mountains of things to understand and memorize.
C. Devs give it no attention at all, except for a "no reply needed" stamp on the thread (which, just for the record, would mean that no AoO is provoked, just one is used).
D. They fix the issue with an errata, and bring bodyguard in line with what they originally had in mind, with no threatening position required.
Cavall wrote: Except that aid another doesn't target an opponent. At all.
It gives a flat bonus to AC or Attack to an ally.
Nothing in aid another states you target an opponent.
To quote:
"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."
Not attack someone. Not even target an opponent. Just give a flat bonus versus a flat number on the sheer chance something may happen.
The important thing to note is how it specifically states that while you're making an attack roll it is to aid an ally. Not to target an opponent.
Therefore paired opportunity isn't happening. Your ally can't attack something not being attacked. Except, once again, the number 10.
The effect is a bonus to your Ally's AC, but Action is an Attack, and the Target is your ally's attacker.
First, the context. Recall that Aid Another is listed under the heading Special Attacks, making it a kind of attack. The fact that it's the Special kind doesn't change the fact that it is an attack. Attacks usually have both attackers and targets, but does the Aid Another description mention an a target?
Core Rulebook, Combat, Special Attacks,Aid Another wrote: In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. The target is mentioned in the first sentence.
Core Rulebook, Combat, Special Attacks,Aid Another wrote: In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. The first sentence of the description: we didn't have to look far. So you are making an attack. Your purpose is to help your friend, but your action is an attack to interfere with your opponent. The target is your ally's attacker. The action is interference/distraction. The effect is, in the case of the Bodyguard Feat, to help your ally become harder to hit.
Don't forget the flavor text at the top of the Bodyguard Feat description.
Bodyguard wrote: Your swift strikes ward off enemies attacking nearby allies. So, with swift strikes, you are making an attack to help a friend defend by interfering with your opponent.
The effect is your friend's +2 AC. But the target of the swift strikes, the target of the attack, the one being interfered with, is your ally's attacker.
Removed a post and its response. FAQ the OP to add this to the queue—there's no need to be hostile towards another poster.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
