Defending another character

[Freesword]

I recently had an idea regarding defending another character from attack. Currently the rules don't give much in the way of options for this. Here's the idea I came up with, I was hoping to get some feedback on it.
-----
Defend Other action

This is a move action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

You designate an ally who is adjacent to you. Whenever a melee attack targets this ally you have the possibility of intercepting the attack and taking the damage in their place.

The attack is compared against the ACs of both you and the intended target. If the attack would hit the higher of the two ACs, the intended target is hit and you fail to intercept the attack.

If only the lower AC is hit, you intercept the hit and take the damage.

If neither AC is hit, the attack misses both of you completely.

In the case of a critical threat, the confirmation roll determines who takes the damage. If the hit confirms against the higher AC, the intended target receives a critical hit. If the lower AC is confirmed, you take the critical hit instead. If the threat fails to confirm either AC, resolve the hit as normal.

Special: In cases where a natural 20 hits with the attack roll result below either AC (rule of 20) and the critical fails to confirm, then you takes the damage instead of the intended target.

This action cannot be used in conjunction with the total defense standard action.
-----
So far the only thing that I'm seeing as questionable is that the confirmation roll of a critical can redirect a hit from the intended target, but it was the only way I could keep critical hits from only hitting the intended target and not the defender.

Granted using this would only make sense if the defending character has a higher AC, otherwise they are pointlessly taking hits that would miss the targeted character (with the possible exception of criticals).

[Mirror, Mirror]

*thunk*
"Message for you, sir!"

I like the idea. On crit's, I would say it should go ahead and hit the intended target, but must confirm vs the higher of the AC's. that way, the strike can get by, but the effectiveness can be deflected. This keeps the "nat20" rule intact while still allowing a benefit to the defending action.

Am I correct that the defending character will take the damage even in the hit would not normally have hit? I think that's a great drawback to the action, but I wanted to make sure.

[Freddy Honeycutt]

One other thing

Miss-communication betwixt you and the individual being defended,

The defended person might hit you by mistake..

It might be easier to carry a reversible shield and just see if by swinging your shield in front of an adjacent character that character gains your shield bonus to AC and you lose your shield bonus to AC....

[Freesword]

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

*thunk*

"Message for you, sir!"

I like the idea. On crit's, I would say it should go ahead and hit the intended target, but must confirm vs the higher of the AC's. that way, the strike can get by, but the effectiveness can be deflected. This keeps the "nat20" rule intact while still allowing a benefit to the defending action.

Am I correct that the defending character will take the damage even in the hit would not normally have hit? I think that's a great drawback to the action, but I wanted to make sure.

This is primarily geared toward keeping damage off soft squishy characters or those that may be helpless. Basically you are shielding them with your body, so you use the lower of the 2 ACs while they use the higher. I should also add a note that attacks that target you are against your normal AC.

As I currently have it written-
The defending character takes damage only in the following instances:
The lower of the 2 ACs is hit (but not the higher).
The critical threat is only confirmed against the lower AC.

A nat20 hits the intended target with the exception of instances when the crit confirms against only the lower AC.

If I understand you correctly, you think it would be better if nat20 always hits the intended target, but only crits if the higher AC is confirmed and the defender takes no damage if they negate a crit on the intended target. This is an option I've been considering and it may well be clearer and easier to implement.

[Sean K Reynolds]

The aid another combat action (pg 197) lets you easily give your ally a +2 AC bonus, and the bonus from multiple allies doing this stacks.

[Mirror, Mirror]

Freesword wrote:

If I understand you correctly, you think it would be better if nat20 always hits the intended target, but only crits if the higher AC is confirmed and the defender takes no damage if they negate a crit on the intended target. This is an option I've been considering and it may well be clearer and easier to implement.

Correct. I think this fits the rule-set of the game better, and realistically allows for more chances for the defending action to fail. As SKR points out above, there is already an Aid Another option for +2 AC (which is great for a pack of low-lvl summons on the mage!), so a more powerful option should have some limitations.

I also think it's clearer, with less to worry about. It becomes a case of "AC-swapping" vs something else.

[wynterknight]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

The aid another combat action (pg 197) lets you easily give your ally a +2 AC bonus, and the bonus from multiple allies doing this stacks.

True, but giving up your actions for the round to provide just a +2 bonus to AC isn't as much fun as this, which only uses your Move action, and so still lets you make an attack against whoever you're defending against.

[Sigurd]

How about a simple feat that lets you aid one adjacent ally when you fight defensively. You could allow and ac bonus of 2 plus anything you chose to remove from your own AC.

Sigurd

[Freesword]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

The aid another combat action (pg 197) lets you easily give your ally a +2 AC bonus, and the bonus from multiple allies doing this stacks.

I admit that had slipped my mind, thanks. What I'm going for isn't so much a way to increase another character's AC as a way to divert attacks to you without a mind effecting/compulsion component. The AC is more a means than an end.

What I'm proposing is rather situational. You are giving up iterative attacks and risking eating an additional hit. If the attacker misses big or hits big, you've sacrificed your move/iterative attacks for nothing. If they hit between the 2 ACs you take the damage instead of the target you are defending. It's really not worth it unless your AC is unlikely to be hit, and the hit you block results in the character not dying/getting off an important spell.

Of course the dramatic value of taking a hit for your teammate might be worth it to some.

[Freesword]

Sigurd wrote:

How about a simple feat that lets you aid one adjacent ally when you fight defensively. You could allow and ac bonus of 2 plus anything you chose to remove from your own AC.

Sigurd

This could be a good alternative to my idea. I do sometimes tend to go complex when a simpler solution could suffice. I'll definitely keep this in mind.