Aid Another counts as Flanking

[farscapesg1]

True, this does improve the Aid Another option quite a bit, but it also provides a lot of teamwork based options. Also remember, that to Aid Another, you are giving up your normal attack in favor of giving the other person the ability to flank the opponent.

Maybe it is just the group I am in, but even if we had a rogue in the group, the DM doesn't run the enemies where you can get good flanking options. A rogue would have a hard time getting any bonuses in our gaming sessions

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I would allow this, as the character is basically forgoing a chance to deal damage in trade for allowing another character to maybe deal more damage.
I would change the verbage so that the character aiding character is effectively located opposite of the aided character, providing flanking.

This way the character can only provide flanking once per round.

Of course, I also allow a feat of 'coordinated fighting' that allows characters who have the feat to provide flanking to any other character with the feat...

Anywho.

 

[sfedi]

I would change the verbage so that the character aiding character is effectively located opposite of the aided character, providing flanking.

Uh?
But if he is already at the opposite side, then he is already granting flanking!

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

as in:

. 1 2 3
A X . .
B Y Z .
C . . .

X Ally at square A1
Y ally at square B1
Z enemy at square B2

Y's action is to Aid Another to assist X's attack.
For the purposes of determining flanking when X attacks, he is considered to be located at square C3 and grants X the +2 to strike and enables Sneak Attack.

He isn't actually there and he does not provide flanking if an ally moves into the square B3.
In this manner a relatively ineffective combatant with a knife cannot provide a flanking bonus to more than one ally at a time but can help flank a creature who has, literally, backed itself into a corner.

Am i making more sense now?

 

[Bihor]

This one is in my house rule now. thanks

 

[sfedi]

The worse case scenario is someone in a corner, or in a narrow corridor, which has positioned himself not to be flanked, and a Rogue and a buddy (probably someone with a weak attack, such as a bard) side by side, and the buddy making Aid Another.

This doesn't sonud very abusive.
Is there any other useful combo?

 

[the Jester]

It also makes it a lot easier to get off a death attack if things are already hot.

 

[ThirdWizard]

You flank the target, not the person you're aiding.

It's an interesting idea, I must admit.

Right, what I meant.

Let me make sure I understand, though...

The way its worded, you have Person A, B, and C.

Person A aids another to help person B hit person C.

Person A is considered flanking. Person B and C are not.

So the benefit is that when you Aid Another you get a +2 to the roll?

Based on:

"Whenever you Aid another to provide a +2 bonus to hit to a friendly combatant, the target is considered flanked by you (the reverse is not true)"

Emphasis added. See what I mean? Since you're Aiding, you can't take any kind of sneak attack, death attack, etc, since aiding is a Standard Action.

 

[JimAde]

Since Sfedi hasn't objected to our interpretations, I assume they are correct. In that case, I agree with ThirdWizard that it's worded badly. To fix this and incorporate Primitive Screwhead's point, it should be:

"Whenever you Aid another to provide a +2 bonus to hit, the target is considered flanked by the ally you are aiding. You cannot also provide a normal flanking bonus to another ally until your next turn."

Something like that?

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I like that verbage better, altho this could be be read as granting +2 from Aid in addition to the +2 from flanking, which I don't think was the idea. Perhaps...

"When Aiding another with a melee attack, instead of providing a +2 bonus to hit the target is considered flanked by the ally you are aiding. You cannot also provide a normal flanking bonus to another ally until your next turn."

?