I just had one of those epiphanies where I realized that I was using a rule wrong for a few years without noticing it.
For the last few years I have allowed players to use the Aid Another action as part of a full attack action in place of a regular attack, and I have counted the +2 bonus for every attack made by the recipient player for one round. I haven't really noticed this because I have seen very few Aid Another actions in my time as DM.
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent's next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.
You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character's skill check.
I ask the forum dwellers here these questions: is allowing a person in melee to use one of their attacks to Aid Another too much for an ability that doesn't cost a feat investment, and does it hurt too terribly much to allow the players to reap the benefits of the action for the entire next round? Also, would it be worth a combat feat to allow this use of Aid Another, or would a feat need to carry more oomph?
I just had one of those epiphanies where I realized that I was using a rule wrong for a few years without noticing it.
For the last few years I have allowed players to use the Aid Another action as part of a full attack action in place of a regular attack, and I have counted the +2 bonus for every attack made by the recipient player for one round. I haven't really noticed this because I have seen very few Aid Another actions in my time as DM.
** spoiler omitted **
I ask the forum dwellers here these questions: is allowing a person in melee to use one of their attacks to Aid Another too much for an ability that doesn't cost a feat investment, and does it hurt too terribly much to allow the players to reap the benefits of the action for the entire next round? Also, would it be worth a combat feat to allow this use of Aid Another, or would a feat need to carry more oomph?
Since Aid Another is a standard action you can do it once per round, not "as many times as you have attacks" per round.
Would it be worth a feat? Might be weak for a feat, but I haven't done any sort of math.
Since Aid Another is a standard action you can do it once per round, not "as many times as you have attacks" per round.
Would you believe that taking out the standard action part and allowing a creature to Aid Another instead of an attack break something, or would the change not, as Bogart said, amount to a hill of beans?
|
Would you believe that taking out the standard action part and allowing a creature to Aid Another instead of an attack break something, or would the change not, as Bogart said, amount to a hill of beans?
Break something? I would say yes for sure, especially considering the Aid Another only requires you to hit AC 10.
Break something? I would say yes for sure, especially considering the Aid Another only requires you to hit AC 10.
Is the benefit of the action greater than the chance to hit for the entire round? If not, is the benefit worth not being able to hit once during a full attack action? I ask because I find having to use a standard action to Aid Another seems to make the option too weak, a DM option for lower level monsters, and I have not seen a situation that would make my mistaken interpretation to much more than a marginal change.
If the AC target is the issue, maybe the target AC could be 10+the targets Base Attack Bonus. That way it is still relativity easy to hit, but it would scale linearly with level. Another option would be to treat the whole mess as a combat maneuver. You could even have scaling bonuses based on how much you beat the opponents CMD.
Break something? I would say yes for sure, especially considering the Aid Another only requires you to hit AC 10.Is the benefit of the action greater than the chance to hit for the entire round? If not, is the benefit worth not being able to hit once during a full attack action? I ask because I find having to use a standard action to Aid Another seems to make the option too weak, a DM option for lower level monsters, and I have not seen a situation that would make my mistaken interpretation to much more than a marginal change.
If the AC target is the issue, maybe the target AC could be 10+the targets Base Attack Bonus. That way it is still relativity easy to hit, but it would scale linearly with level. Another option would be to treat the whole mess as a combat maneuver. You could even have scaling bonuses based on how much you beat the opponents CMD.
Aid another can be very useful if used correctly, now as it stands without the use of feats its quite crippling because your sacrificing your own standard to assist your ally from danger.
Though with feats like bodyguard and swift aid this can be over come.An example I can provide that I have been working on is a Cavalier (which can be found in the APG), with Honour guard prestige class(UC). Taking Swift aid and Bodyguard allowing him to at any time provide aid to an ally without incurring any negative repercussions due to loss of actions, The beautiful thing about it is that with the order of the dragon + Honour guard I have +7 towards my allies AC, +6 to attack, or +5 to saves/skills not to mention saving shield which provides a +2 shield bonus as an immediate reaction. there are plenty of ways to utilize this action you just gotta know where to look. I am sure there must be other feats/classes/abilities that I do not know about but hey, at least I can provide you with evidence that the action is not pointless or does it need adjusting. It truly is a tank action, meant for the party members who want to keep others safe regardless of how much they can do.
|
Break something? I would say yes for sure, especially considering the Aid Another only requires you to hit AC 10.Is the benefit of the action greater than the chance to hit for the entire round? If not, is the benefit worth not being able to hit once during a full attack action? I ask because I find having to use a standard action to Aid Another seems to make the option too weak, a DM option for lower level monsters, and I have not seen a situation that would make my mistaken interpretation to much more than a marginal change.
If the AC target is the issue, maybe the target AC could be 10+the targets Base Attack Bonus. That way it is still relativity easy to hit, but it would scale linearly with level. Another option would be to treat the whole mess as a combat maneuver. You could even have scaling bonuses based on how much you beat the opponents CMD.
As part of a full attack action, woul dthere be any problems, in your mind, if, on the last iterative,the one with the lowest attack bonus, the PC used that as an Aid Another attack, against AC 10, instead of against the target's real AC?
Overall, you would be sacrificing your worst attack, the one with the lowest chance to hit, to give an ally a +2 to hit or AC. And, at higher levels, that can still be an easy number to hit. -15 from an attack that is at +20 BAB, +11 Str, +5 Enhancement, +1 WF, +1 GWF, +4 Weapon Training, is going to have a hard time missing AC 10...