Pretty good list, although #4 is misleading. You can only do that if you're holding the charge, which is specifically for the round after you cast it.
Still pretty nifty, but not the same as the Magus.
|
As a side note, untyped bonuses and dodge bonuses are the only ones that stack without express permission.This is only half correct. In addition to untyped bonuses and dodge bonuses, racial bonuses and most circumstance bonuses also stack.
Are you sure? In the CRB, halfling bravery and luck are specifically called out to stack. But I haven't been able to find any other note that racial or circumstance bonuses stack by default.
|
Rule 1 is broken by the Mythic Ability: Always a chance. And any multi-roll or re-roll abilities.
Rule 2 is broken by some terrain bonuses to concealment as well as (I think) a few feats that add 10%.
Rule 3 - one charge at a time? naw... don't think that is the limit (chill touch). Charges from one spell at a time, yes.
Rule 4 - finally one that isn't broken (I think).
Rule 5 - yep. OK. That's two good "unbroken" rules listed.
Rules that are broken aren't really rules, right? More like "guidelines for mortal characters."
Pretty good list, although #4 is misleading. You can only do that if you're holding the charge, which is specifically for the round after you cast it.
Still pretty nifty, but not the same as the Magus.
Add in that having the wizard punch someone is a whole separate level of problems.
You always COULD spell/punch someone... but without the stats/build/BAB... WHY would you?!?!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rule 1 is broken by the Mythic Ability: Always a chance. And any multi-roll or re-roll abilities.
A specific rules changing how a general rules work don't break it.
Rule 2 is broken by some terrain bonuses to concealment as well as (I think) a few feats that add 10%.
Concealment isn't a bonus.
Rule 3 - one charge at a time? naw... don't think that is the limit (chill touch). Charges from one spell at a time, yes.
1 charge with multiple uses.
Rule 4 - finally one that isn't broken (I think).Rule 5 - yep. OK. That's two good "unbroken" rules listed.
Rules that are broken aren't really rules, right? More like "guidelines for mortal characters."
No rule was broken.
Where do you get "deliver the touch as a free action"? Isn't it an attack (Standard Action)?
Casting the spell is a standard action, but you get a free touch to deliver it at any point during the round you cast it. So you can cast out of a threatened area, then move and deliver the touch without provoking an AoO for casting.
See here.
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main reason people don't use Aid Another in combat is the fact that giving an ally a miserable +2 to AC against a single opponent for a single round is just not worth losing your standard action, much less a potential full attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You get a free touch, but not a free unarmed attack. The free touch does no damage on its own, so you can't combine (for example), a claw attack or the monk's unarmed damage or anything like that.
If I cast a touch spell such as shocking grasp last round, I could use my stunning fist ability to deliver an unarmed attack, do damage from the punch, stun you, and shock you all at the same time. But I can't cast a spell this round (using my standard action) and punch you (also using my standard action) unless I'm a magus.
And I don't get a free unarmed strike, just a free touch.
It comes into play most often when, for whatever reason, you're just not going to be able to do much on your own (tapped of spells, or Greater Disarmed, or facing something with a DR that only your allies can penetrate). It's fun to combine with flanking. Personally my group usually uses it to grant +2 to hit: as you say, the AC bonus is more situational (though it's still useful if the enemy's got, say, a nasty touch spell and is sure to be attacking one of your low-touch-AC allies.)
Sure, it's only useful occasionally. But it's nice to have the option, and since it's an option everybody can use (what, no feat tax?!) it's worth remembering.
Meh... Unless it's an spell-less Wizard who is in melee range for some reason and also somehow absolutely sure that the enemy won't target him next, there is probably something better to be done with your action.
It's better than not having the option, I suppose, but the bonus is so small and so situational that the rule might as well not be there 99% of the time. I honestly wish Aid Another scaled better.
It's also weird that a Pixie Wizard with Str 7 is just as helpful at pushing heavy objects as a Ogre Barbarian with Str 46.
I think the rules for Aid Another could be revised somewhat... Maybe make the bonus could scale with BAB (for AC/to-hit boost) or the appropriate attribute (for skill checks).
|
I think the main reason people don't use Aid Another in combat is the fact that giving an ally a miserable +2 to AC against a single opponent for a single round is just not worth losing your standard action, much less a potential full attack.
Correction, +2 to AC versus a single attack.
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh... I never imagined Aid Another could be even more useless than I thought it was. -.-'
I expected to see Take 10 on this list...
and Take 20.
Yeah, Aid Another is often a bad idea. A sorc would be better off spamming acid splash.
|
|
I once played Kyra as a 4th lvl pregen for fun in an encounter I had already played (the table needed a 4th pc and I had nothing better to do). For fun, I had her basically sucker punch people in the kidneys when using her healing spells. Meaningless comment but I just wanted to share that it was fun doing it.
Aid another kind of depends on how and when you use. When there is only 1 guy in the group with the right weapon to hurt what ever you are fighting, it can make a difference between TPK and victory.
and of course there are always extreem situations like the character I am currently playing in Serpent's Skull. A Huntsman Cavalier of the Order of the Dragon who's hunting pack are all trained in Aid Another. I represent a pretty whopping big bonus when it's needed. It's not something I use on a regular basis but when a fight comes down to "The Paladin can hurt it and I can't", Dropping a large pile of Aid bonuses on the AC or Hit of the Pally helps.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's with all the Aid Another hate?
Against an enemy with high AC, where the barbarian doing 2d6+9 with a greatsword, but needs a 14 or higher to hit, wouldn't giving him a +2 on that roll be worth more than 1d3 from an Acid Splash? I haven't done the math, but over 2 or 3 rounds, it seems far more likely to add up to doing 9 or more points of damage than throwing an Acid Splash for 1d3, especially since you'll have a -4 penalty for firing into melee.
But there are other times when Aid Another is even more useful than that. Remember, you can give you ally a bonus on ANY attack roll, not just attacks for damage.
I remember in a PFS scenario with a reputation for being particularly deadly, our team's grappling specialist completely shut down the big boss with high AC by grappling him, with the help of 3 or 4 Aid Another attacks from the rest of the team to make sure he'd succeed. Speaking of bonuses stacking, Aid Another is untyped.
Then there's my leprechaun wannabe character - a halfling cleric of "Lady Luck" (Desna) named Seamus Luckleaf, who speaks with an Irish accent, wears green, has the Luck domain, and whose goal in life is to "spread the luck around" (buff/heal specialist). He has the Helpful halfling trait, which makes his Aid Another count for +4. At low levels, when he runs low on spells or domain abilities to buff his allies, or just wants to save them for later, he uses his 7 strength and small sized dagger to give an ally +4 on their next attack, instead of doing 1d3-2 damage on his own. Of course, he's also wearing enough armor to be safer on the front line than a sorcerer, but Aid Another is practically his bread and butter at low levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For Aid another, i always use the old Epic Level Handbook rule, for each 10 that you beat the aid CD, your aid bonus increase by 1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's with all the Aid Another hate?
Against an enemy with high AC, where the barbarian doing 2d6+9 with a greatsword, but needs a 14 or higher to hit, wouldn't giving him a +2 on that roll be worth more than 1d3 from an Acid Splash? I haven't done the math, but over 2 or 3 rounds, it seems far more likely to add up to doing 9 or more points of damage than throwing an Acid Splash for 1d3, especially since you'll have a -4 penalty for firing into melee.
Because that sorc now has to be in melee also, along with the Bbn, and at less than 1/2 the HP and likely AC.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Because that sorc now has to be in melee also, along with the Bbn, and at less than 1/2 the HP and likely AC.What's with all the Aid Another hate?
Against an enemy with high AC, where the barbarian doing 2d6+9 with a greatsword, but needs a 14 or higher to hit, wouldn't giving him a +2 on that roll be worth more than 1d3 from an Acid Splash? I haven't done the math, but over 2 or 3 rounds, it seems far more likely to add up to doing 9 or more points of damage than throwing an Acid Splash for 1d3, especially since you'll have a -4 penalty for firing into melee.
And if the enemy uses attacks on the sorcerer who's only aiding another rather than the barbarian who's doing 50+ hp a round in damage, that's bad how?
|
I don't think Aid Another is all that useless, if you have a Reach weapon to do it with [another reason everyone but the monk/druid should own a Longspear]. Its at least slightly more interesting then spamming d3 damage each round, since it gives you options[very few options, but still options]. Once saved a character's life with it in a homegame.
|
It's also weird that a Pixie Wizard with Str 7 is just as helpful at pushing heavy objects as a Ogre Barbarian with Str 46.
I think the rules for Aid Another could be revised somewhat... Maybe make the bonus could scale with BAB (for AC/to-hit boost) or the appropriate attribute (for skill checks).
And the Helpful Halfling with a 7 STR is twice as useful as the Barbarian! Though only 45% of the time!
It's also weird that a Pixie Wizard with Str 7 is just as helpful at pushing heavy objects as a Ogre Barbarian with Str 46.
Except it isn't.
You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort.
So the pixie with Str 7 (-2 mod) needs to roll a 12, but the ogre (+18 mod) gets an auto success. Admittedly it doesn't matter if he gets +9 or +18.
But otherwise, helping in melee just needs to hit AC10 which is trivial after a while: My 3rd level rogue attacks at +8, even when not flanking), so needs to roll a 2, just like the 20th level fighter also needs to roll a 2.
I like Dekalinder's fix of +1 per 10 by which you make the roll. Solves it nicely, and makes Helpful halflings really quite handy if that doubles too.
It comes into play most often when, for whatever reason, you're just not going to be able to do much on your own (tapped of spells, or Greater Disarmed, or facing something with a DR that only your allies can penetrate). It's fun to combine with flanking. Personally my group usually uses it to grant +2 to hit: as you say, the AC bonus is more situational (though it's still useful if the enemy's got, say, a nasty touch spell and is sure to be attacking one of your low-touch-AC allies.)
Sure, it's only useful occasionally. But it's nice to have the option, and since it's an option everybody can use (what, no feat tax?!) it's worth remembering.
Meh... Unless it's an spell-less Wizard who is in melee range for some reason and also somehow absolutely sure that the enemy won't target him next, there is probably something better to be done with your action.
It's better than not having the option, I suppose, but the bonus is so small and so situational that the rule might as well not be there 99% of the time. I honestly wish Aid Another scaled better.
It's still better than all the narrow focused specialist casters who will literally do absolutely nothing in a combat because whatever is immune to their spells.
|
|
I believe the rules pertaining to Archery and Mounted Combat are more frequently forgotten or misunderstood.
Archery, yes, but I just don't see mounted combat come up often enough to put it on a top 5 list. Usually, the people who built their PC for it know what they're doing, even if the GM and everyone else at the table have no clue. On the other hand, everyone seems to have their own definition of what constitutes "cover" when ranged attacks are happening.
My top choice for frequently misused rules would be animal companions. Most people just assume they can control the animal like a PC, and it'll do whatever they want. The concept of having to train it for tricks, that there are only specific things it can do based on those tricks, and that most animals don't know enough to flank in combat (I believe the flank trick wasn't introduced until the Animal Archive book), are all lost on most players. I didn't realize most of this until I'd been playing for a while, which is surprising since most of my play for my first year of PFS involved a druid with a badger companion and another player/GM who was a major rules lawyer, but knew surprisingly little about this stuff.
I noticed when I started pfs a lot of players struggled with drawing sheathing items and handedness.
No idea if it was deliberate or simply being obtuse.
I think this is literally the worst Wizard I've heard of in the last 5 years or so.
I think this is literally the worst Wizard I've heard of in the last 5 years or so.
This guy always makes really hyper focused PC's then gets bored with them because they so often can't do anything. Then he makes another that is hyper focused on something else. Someone told me he has over a dozen PFS characters of different levels and he plays the same way in his home game.
About every 4th PC will be an attempt to do a little of everything. Then he gets upset because it is so mediocre at everything. Anymore, we just roll our eyes and try to work around him.
When his build is 'ON' he smashes through anything, but that always seems to be less often than he expects.
So here's an interesting one, since we're on a rules thread and all:
My Life Oracle casts Sanctuary to prevent enemies from attacking her, then wanders over to help the fighter. Can she flank and Aid Another for the fighter without losing Sanctuary?
It specifically says, "The subject cannot attack without breaking the spell but may use nonattack spells or otherwise act."
Since she's not attacking, just distracting, seems legitimate to me.
Arguments against this tactic?
So here's an interesting one, since we're on a rules thread and all:
My Life Oracle casts Sanctuary to prevent enemies from attacking her, then wanders over to help the fighter. Can she flank and Aid Another for the fighter without losing Sanctuary?
It specifically says, "The subject cannot attack without breaking the spell but may use nonattack spells or otherwise act."
Since she's not attacking, just distracting, seems legitimate to me.
Arguments against this tactic?
IMO, if you're making an attack roll, even vs AC 10, you're attacking.
That's just my opinion, though, with no rules references to back it up.
It's still better than all the narrow focused specialist casters who will literally do absolutely nothing in a combat because whatever is immune to their spells.
Yep. In order to "prove" how powerful low level spellcasters are, I have seen builds which put all or nearly all of their feats, traits, bloodlines, and what-not into either Color Spray or Burning hands.
Both are useful spells, no doubt. But quite a few things are immune to Color spray, and later resistant to fire. Not to mention with both spells you have to get within 15' of the bad guy, which is a place few spellcasters ever want to be.
If I played a oracle of Heavens, sure, you'd want to cast Color spray a lot, and why not invest something to make it hard to resist?
But a one trick pony does not a good spellcaster make.
And if the enemy uses attacks on the sorcerer who's only aiding another rather than the barbarian who's doing 50+ hp a round in damage, that's bad how?
Divide and conquer. If the sorcerer is doing Aid Another and that's the best use of his turn, the BBEG can generally one-hit KO the sorcerer, and remove him from the equation. Sorcerer is easier to hit, has lower total health, and is making the thing hurting him better at hurting him. Why WOULDN'T the BBEG ruin the sorcerer's life?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's still better than all the narrow focused specialist casters who will literally do absolutely nothing in a combat because whatever is immune to their spells.
And this is why my enchanting focused Fey Sorceress took Magic Missile as a known spell right from level 1. It's also why my melee beast barbarian carried a longbow and alchemist's fires right from level 1. ALWAYS have a backup plan for when you can't do your specialty in combat.
Specializing is good, and the game rewards it, but I always recommend that every PC be built to do three things:
1. Have a specialty in combat. It doesn't have to be damage, but it should be something useful you can do in most fights.
2. Have a backup plan for what to do in combat if you can't do your specialty. Again, it doesn't have to be damage - the lousy wizard above could have walked around tapping his allies with a wand of Protection from Evil when faced with electricity immune enemies, and it would have been better than doing nothing. Other scrolls or wands of non-electric damaging spells would have been good, too.
3. Pick something to be good at out of combat. This means having at least one skill that you're good at for your level, though it could be more than that. For some PCs with a non-combat focus, this could even be their main specialty (such as my bard who focuses on social skills and bardic knowledge, at the expense of not having much invested in combat abilities), but they should still make a point of having two useful and unrelated things they can do during combat.
|
|
So here's an interesting one, since we're on a rules thread and all:
My Life Oracle casts Sanctuary to prevent enemies from attacking her, then wanders over to help the fighter. Can she flank and Aid Another for the fighter without losing Sanctuary?
It specifically says, "The subject cannot attack without breaking the spell but may use nonattack spells or otherwise act."
Since she's not attacking, just distracting, seems legitimate to me.
Arguments against this tactic?
IMO, if you're making an attack roll, even vs AC 10, you're attacking.
That's just my opinion, though, with no rules references to back it up.
Agreed. An Aid Another attack is still an attack, so it would break the Sanctuary. Flanking wouldn't, since you're only threatening to attack, not actually doing it.
|
|
And if the enemy uses attacks on the sorcerer who's only aiding another rather than the barbarian who's doing 50+ hp a round in damage, that's bad how?Divide and conquer. If the sorcerer is doing Aid Another and that's the best use of his turn, the BBEG can generally one-hit KO the sorcerer, and remove him from the equation. Sorcerer is easier to hit, has lower total health, and is making the thing hurting him better at hurting him. Why WOULDN'T the BBEG ruin the sorcerer's life?
Well, I am assuming the sorcerer would have Mage Armor and Shield up, if nothing else. Usually, we're talking low levels if we're talking about spellcasters with nothing else to do, so 18 AC (plus dex bonus and whatever else) should be good enough to risk heading to the front line. By higher levels when that AC is meaningless, they should have enough spells per day and variety of spells not to be in the situation of having nothing better to do.
|
|
And if the enemy uses attacks on the sorcerer who's only aiding another rather than the barbarian who's doing 50+ hp a round in damage, that's bad how?Divide and conquer. If the sorcerer is doing Aid Another and that's the best use of his turn, the BBEG can generally one-hit KO the sorcerer, and remove him from the equation. Sorcerer is easier to hit, has lower total health, and is making the thing hurting him better at hurting him. Why WOULDN'T the BBEG ruin the sorcerer's life?
Mirror image.
About aiding another with a skill check:
Aid AnotherYou can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you're helping gets a +2 bonus on his or her check. (You can't take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character's help won't be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once.
In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.
In combat:
Aid Another
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.
But I haven't found anything about aiding another with a ability check, even if it is often cited in the ability checks you find in published adventures. I would allow it but will take in account the last row of the skill check description "The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well."
If the difference id Str 46 to Str 7 and the characters are trying to move a boulder the helpful halfling will not add anything to the check. If the check is to see how fast they can excavate an hole I would apply the halfling bonus.
Aid another is most useful for skill checks, true, but anytime you don't have the correct answer to overcome a creature's DR, you're probably better off aiding the guy who does. For example, a rogue against something immune to precision damage could contribute more DPR to the party by increasing the fighter's chance to hit or preventing the barbarian from getting hit.
Unarmed strike-based characters against anything that causes damage when you touch it or ranged characters against someone with protection from arrows, missile deflection, et al: pick up your backup melee weapon and help. I know you're not optimized to use a club or a quarterstaff, but you only have to hit AC 10.
Of course, there are also traits that increase your aid bonus to 3 or 4 (for halflings).