FAQ States Bodyguard is not an AOO. So is Total Defense + Bodyguard fine then?

[Darpeh]

Pretty much subject line. The official FAQ here states that you are not making an AOO: https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9uws

Does this then mean that bodyguard can be used while taking the total defense action? I have found a previous post from Jason Nelson (the author of that feat) that says you cannot but it was about 4 years before the FAQ was issued. I could see an argument being made for "your AOO pool is not available when taking total defense" I guess?

Some clarity on this would be rad.

[Diego Rossi]

Link to the FAQ

Bodyguard FAQ wrote:

Bodyguard uses up one of your attacks of opportunity for the round, but the enemy hasn’t provoked an attack of opportunity from you, nor are you making one (which is relevant for abilities like Paired Opportunist).

Total defense wrote:

You can’t make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.

Using Bodyguard requires the expense of the resource "Attack of opportunity for the round: 1". The value of the resource, when using total defense is 0. As you can't spend the needed resource you can't use Bodyguard.

[Zwordsman]

i don't beleive using up a resource is the same as making that action.
Similar to using something like conductive but not being able to do the action that it may or may not require to use normally.

I can't think of anything that would mean you can't use body guard while total defensing. It simply counts against the total. It itself is not an attack of opporunity.
It says you are not making an attack of opportunity. So it counts against the maximum but is not one. So I do not se an issue.

[AwesomenessDog]

Zwordsman wrote:

i don't beleive using up a resource is the same as making that action.

Similar to using something like conductive but not being able to do the action that it may or may not require to use normally.

I can't think of anything that would mean you can't use body guard while total defensing. It simply counts against the total. It itself is not an attack of opporunity.
It says you are not making an attack of opportunity. So it counts against the maximum but is not one. So I do not se an issue.

Would you allow a swashbuckler to parry and riposte while full defensing? Parry is not an AoO but uses an AoO, and riposte is an immediate action and is thus not precluded.

[Java Man]

Let's step back a couple, while fighting defensively the attack roll to activate body guard would suffer the -4 penalty, would it not? So while doing full defense shouldn't the attack roll to activate bodyguard suffer the full defense attack penalty? And that penalty is prohibition.

[Darpeh]

Java Man wrote:

Let's step back a couple, while fighting defensively the attack roll to activate body guard would suffer the -4 penalty, would it not? So while doing full defense shouldn't the attack roll to activate bodyguard suffer the full defense attack penalty? And that penalty is prohibition.

It absolutely would but it's against AC10 to activate aid another so somewhat trivial to even consider the penalty in terms of whether or not bodyguard is allowed during total defense.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Since the feat does not require you make an AoO it should not matter if you can make one. The wording of the feat sates you use up one of your AoO, it does not say you make one or even spend one. Not being able to do something does not reduce the value to 0, it simply means you cannot utilize it. Going with the spending example if I have money but cannot spend the money does not mean I lose all the money. The money could be taken without me actually purchasing something.

The real question is can you use any attack while you are using total defense? Aid another requires you to make an attack roll. Total defense specifically states you cannot make an AoO while using it, so how are you making the attack roll? If the attack roll is not a AoO despite using one, what type of attack is it and how are you making it while using the total defense? Besides AoO or the free attack you get when using a touch spell, I am not aware of any other attacks that do not require using some other action. Total Defense is a standard action which means you cannot use a normal attack action, or a full attack action.

[Darpeh]

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Since the feat does not require you make an AoO it should not matter if you can make one. The wording of the feat sates you use up one of your AoO, it does not say you make one or even spend one. Not being able to do something does not reduce the value to 0, it simply means you cannot utilize it. Going with the spending example if I have money but cannot spend the money does not mean I lose all the money. The money could be taken without me actually purchasing something.

The real question is can you use any attack while you are using total defense? Aid another requires you to make an attack roll. Total defense specifically states you cannot make an AoO while using it, so how are you making the attack roll? If the attack roll is not a AoO despite using one, what type of attack is it and how are you making it while using the total defense? Besides AoO or the free attack you get when using a touch spell, I am not aware of any other attacks that do not require using some other action. Total Defense is a standard action which means you cannot use a normal attack action, or a full attack action.

The FAQ clarifies that it is in fact spending AOOs from a resource pool and is NOT making an AOO in a literal sense. It is, in fact, an Aid Another action that consumes an AOO charge. So the question that follows is whether or not your AOO "pool" is 0 at the start of that round.

Also, total defense *only* precludes AOOs not all forms of attack. There is no language about all attack rolls (even though that kind of makes sense).

[Diego Rossi]

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Since the feat does not require you make an AoO it should not matter if you can make one.

As the FAQ specifies , you use one of your attacks of opportunity for the round. Not a potential AoO, but one of those that you can make that round. If you can't make any because you are using total defense, you have no AoO to use.

The same as when a Barbarian needs to use rage rounds but has none, the same as when a Bard needs to use perform rounds, and so on.

When you don't have a resource you can't use the resource.

[Diego Rossi]

Darpeh wrote:

Also, total defense *only* precludes AOOs not all forms of attack. There is no language about all attack rolls (even though that kind of makes sense).

True. Probably it was written that way to allow the Quickened casting of spells with an attack roll and the use of immediate/swift actions that require an attack roll, but it creates some interpretation problems.

It is a bit ridiculous that if you cast a Quickened Scorching ray while fighting defensively you suffer a -4 to hit, but if you do so while using Total defense you don't suffer any penalty.

[MrCharisma]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Darpeh wrote:

Also, total defense *only* precludes AOOs not all forms of attack. There is no language about all attack rolls (even though that kind of makes sense).

True. Probably it was written that way to allow the Quickened casting of spells with an attack roll and the use of immediate/swift actions that require an attack roll, but it creates some interpretation problems.

It is a bit ridiculous that if you cast a Quickened Scorching ray while fighting defensively you suffer a -4 to hit, but if you do so while using Total defense you don't suffer any penalty.

Well you could cast a non-quickened scorching ray defensively and get the same benefit for a much lower spell-slot. Would 4 levels of spell be worth a +4 to hit?

Or you could cast a Quickened scorching ray without taking the -4 penalty and then a regular un-quickened scorching ray with the -4 penalty and still have the AC bonus for the rest of the round.

So the cost of Full Defence is still the standard action.

[AwesomenessDog]

This brings back the debate of swashbuckler's "swift action fight defensively" problem that was never handled with errata from dizzying defense at level 15. Do you get a single attack as a bonus attack with the swift or are you just spending the swift action to gain the bonuses of fighting defensively after you full attack in the round?

[Darpeh]

AwesomenessDog wrote:

This brings back the debate of swashbuckler's "swift action fight defensively" problem that was never handled with errata from dizzying defense at level 15. Do you get a single attack as a bonus attack with the swift or are you just spending the swift action to gain the bonuses of fighting defensively after you full attack in the round?

I actually don't see how this is relevant in the slightest. You are referencing confusion between the standard action and full round action version of *Fighting Defensively* which is its own entity. Completely separate from Total Defense.

Total Defense absolutely allows for swift actions and immediate actions per RAW. There is no language that precludes this at all. Nor, as I see it, is there any connected ability that would give that impression. Total defense surrenders your standard action to defend yourself rather than attack (with your standard action). Fighting defensively is carefully attacking. Let's not conflate them please.

[Java Man]

Well Darpeh, it looks like you disagree with the folks who are responding here and no one is convincing anyone to change their minds. But good news! We aren't at the same table, and we don't need to agree.

[Darpeh]

Java Man wrote:

Well Darpeh, it looks like you disagree with the folks who are responding here and no one is convincing anyone to change their minds. But good news! We aren't at the same table, and we don't need to agree.

This wasn't even toward you? Unless you're referring to me calling the attack penalty somewhat trivial to consider? AC10 vs AC14 doesn't seem that bad... but maybe I missed your point and you're saying the same thing as Diego.

Just trying to keep the conversation on topic as we're getting a little off in the weeds to other disagreements people want to have about swashbucklers and fighting defensively - which is objectively a different rules interaction. I actually don't have a firm opinion one way or the other on my original question - which is kinda why I asked.

My take-away so far from this thread is that it seems to be a GM decision. Because it comes down to whether or not this...

Total Defense wrote:

You can’t make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.

...means your pool of AOOs is 0 due to taking Total Defense (as Diego states), or if it means that you have your standard pool of AOOs but simply can't make AOO actions with that pool. Which would seem to mean that Bodyguard would be allowed because it is an Aid Another action (which is what Stranger was talking about).

Unfortunately that seems very open to interpretation. Sounds like my GM will be ruling the former situation.

[Darpeh]

Diego Rossi wrote:

It is a bit ridiculous that if you cast a Quickened Scorching ray while fighting defensively you suffer a -4 to hit, but if you do so while using Total defense you don't suffer any penalty.

Surrendering your Standard Action in exchange for AC seems like cost enough at first glance... The extension of this though, assuming Bodyguard is allowed during Total Defense, does seem a bit odd that you could have multiple Bodyguard "attacks" (AC10) that do not have the penalty they would have from Fighting Defensively (AC14). While simultaneously granting more AC. It's not... wildly off cost wise? But it does feel weird that all it costs is a Standard Action.

[Talonhawke]

Well some other things to consider would you allow

1. A rogue to use Acrobatic Assist?

Acrobatic Assist:

You can expend an attack of opportunity to perform an aid another action to assist an adjacent ally’s Acrobatics check, so long as he makes the check as part of movement that passes through your space or an adjacent space. Additionally, whenever you use the aid another action to assist an ally in making an Acrobatics check and you succeed, your ally gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC against attacks of opportunity caused when he moves out of or within a threatened area, until the end of his turn.

2. What about Got Your Back?

Got Your Back:

Once per round as an immediate action, you may expend an attack of opportunity to attempt an aid another check to improve an ally’s attack. You and your ally must both be flanking the same opponent. This counts as an attack of opportunity.

3. Sleight of Hand Stunt maybe?

Sleight of Hand Stunt:

In place of an attack of opportunity, a rogue with this talent can attempt a Sleight of Hand check against the CMD of an opponent that provokes an attack of opportunity by firing a projectile weapon while threatened. If successful, the rogue plucks the ammunition from the provoking weapon, negating the attack. The rogue may use this ability as many times in a round as she could make attacks of opportunity. At the GM’s discretion, certain projectile weapons may not be susceptible to this ability, such as siege engines or firearms. A rogue must be trained in Sleight of Hand to select this talent.

4. Stealth Stunt

Stealth Stunt:

When benefiting from concealment, a rogue with this talent can forgo an attack of opportunity to attempt a Stealth check against the provoking opponent’s CMD. Success allows the rogue to treat her opponent as flat-footed against the rogue’s first melee attack before the end of her next turn. Using this ability does not count against the rogue’s available attacks of opportunity for the round. A rogue must be trained in Stealth to select this talent.

Didn't find many cases outside of those rogue ones on a quick search but it's a few more things one has to consider when deciding whether or not making attacks of oppourtunity and using uses of AoO are the same thing.