rules discussion Using Ranged Attack to grant Aid Another bonus

[pdwalt]

normally aid another requires a melee weapon (according to rules) (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/Combat/#TOC-Aid-Another) - some GMs allow ranged attacks to do the same - is that something you allow?

Edited May 3, 2023 by iantruesilver (see edit history)

[iantruesilver]

1 hour ago, pdwalt said:

normally aid another requires a melee weapon (according to rules) (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/Combat/#TOC-Aid-Another) - some GMs allow ranged attacks to do the same - is that something you allow?

That's an interesting yet sticky topic. I suppose it depends on your intent. Please clarify.

[pdwalt]

8 hours ago, iantruesilver said:

That's an interesting yet sticky topic. I suppose it depends on your intent. Please clarify.

it would be something like throwing a javelin at a skeleton to distract it - assisting a PC against their attack, or maybe assisting a PC because the skeleton moved some attention to defending against the thrown weapon,.

I totally understand why it is not allowed in the rules, for balance considerations, but since I know GMs have different opinions 

[iantruesilver]

Okay. So if I'm interpreting this correctly, you're asking if a ranged attacker can make use of the Aid Another Special Attack mechanic to grant an ally (presumably in melee against the same opponent) a bonus to attack or AC, subject to the same rules and limitations?

Edited May 3, 2023 by iantruesilver (see edit history)

[iantruesilver]

Amplifying factors: the grant an ally AC bonus part is covered in the Covering Fire (RTT) feat, and grant ally attack bonus (as well as other things) is covered in the Strategy ability under the Order of the Dragon Cavalier.

[iantruesilver]

The main question here rests as follows:

 

If we're imposing the same limits for a ranged application, all things such as requiring a standard action, and a single attack against AC 10 would be the same. Features that allow multiple attacks would not apply.

 

The difference is, ranged attack does not require the aiding attacker to be adjacent to their opponent, and therefore does not open the aiding attacker up to the possibility of retaliation via melee, and quite frankly ranged or spell attacks as well, as the opponent would be presently engaged in melee combat, and would suffer AoOs in order to retaliate against the aiding attacker at ranged.

 

It also allows the ranged aiding attacker a lot more flexibility in positioning.

 

That would be my observation on the matter. That said, I am neutral with regards to potentially houseruling this in, so I'll open this up for discussion and voting.

[Wiz]

Normally, with aiding another through melee, it would limit the amount of possible aid to five others (you can't stack more than six meleers on one human-sized target).  Allowing it to happen at range suggests you could have twenty or more people aiding anothe on one target.

[iantruesilver]

1 hour ago, Wiz said:

Normally, with aiding another through melee, it would limit the amount of possible aid to five others (you can't stack more than six meleers on one human-sized target).  Allowing it to happen at range suggests you could have twenty or more people aiding anothe on one target.

Actually, on a square grid 8 possible meleers can attack the same target, so 7 could potentially use the aid another mechanic to assist one.
 

However good point as well. As written, if extended to ranged without further limits, nothing potentially stops a whole company of archers from aiding one dude, even at 30' range (which would be a terribly big waste of archers, but hey…)

Edited May 3, 2023 by iantruesilver (see edit history)

[Wiz]

And then half miss and because they are 0th level peyons, they don't have precise shot and those who miss accidentally hit the person yoyu are helping.

[TheFred]

I doubt it breaks anything (Aid isn’t that good), though having all the tiny goblin archers shoot you or whatever sucks, but it seems kinda weird if you don’t even have, like, Precise Shot. How are you supposed to aid someone when you’re liable to hit them instead?

[farothel]

I would certainly limit it to the maximum amount that can be helped in melee (as discussed above), but other than that, I don't have much problems with it.

[Inash]

Yes, but only in the lesser of 30’ or the first range increment and precise shot is required, and limited to no more aids than is possible if all were melee.

[pdwalt]

If you were going to rule it - requiring the ranged assistant to be adjacent to the person they are assisting, would limit the number of assistors and likely put a built in -4 penalty to the shot - making the target to assist a 14 not a 10  (cover penalties are figured differently than melee, but being adjacent to the one being assisted likely puts part of the square in the line of fire) - (and precise shot does not negate the cover penalty - just the shoot into threatened penalty - which in Lars' case would have been added too)

 

It may be just not a good variation of the rule -  though if you used the adjacent to the assisted, you could also let reach weapons assist.

 

[iantruesilver]

If we allow it, I wouldn't require adjacent to the assisted or opponent, I'd rule that you'd have to be within 30' and first range increment, part of which is conveniently prereq for the point-blank shot line.

 

Requiring precise shot makes sense, but pushes it back a little bit for non-ranged focused builds.

 

And limiting it to say "useable by player characters only" essentially eliminates the "how many cohorts/followers can I cram into a 30' radius?" hack, which, since we are never going to be recruiting more than what we currently have (7 is a pretty high player count even for PbP), there'll only ever be 6 aiders max.

 

If everyone's okay with how that's proposed, then I can rule it in as such.

[Wiz]

Rule as you like, you are GM, but I notice your poll has a No, and multiple abstains.  Sounds like the player preference is no, unless I'm misunderstanding.