I guess technically the requirement to threaten an enemy when you want to improve your ally's AC against that enemy wouldn't apply to increasing your ally's saving throw against a spell. I mean, being in position to attack an enemy clearly doesn't apply to using Aid Another to boost an ally's skill check, which is probably the most common use of Aid Another in many games.
As an aside, I always found it odd that the Aid Another action seemed to imply you could help boost an ally's saving throw against a spell (perhaps helping to break the effect of Hold Person, Dominate Person, etc?) but didn't offer any details on how that boost worked. I mean, even for Vanguard Style, do you make an attack roll against AC 10 to boost your ally's Reflex save, or do you make a Reflex save against DC 10? I'd guess the latter, but it doesn't seem clear. I've yet to find a DM who would allow Aid Another for saving throws anyhow, but maybe if I could explain how it works somebody be more likely to allow it.
I wonder if a "happy medium" might have been achieved by a ruling that no matter what happens you can't get more than a +4 total boost on anything from Aid Another no matter how many allies help you or how great their Aid Another abilities are. I'm not sure if only 2 allies being able to assist on a skill check is a house rule or a real rule, but I've seen it as a general assumption at a lot of tables (maybe it is a relic of 3.5?)
I disagree. Vanguard Style is written basically identically (and also builds off of) Bodyguard. There's no real reason why it wouldn't use the exact same mechanics. The trouble with Bodyguard is that nothing in it subverts the normal requirements to aid another and neither does Vanguard Style.Probably not. Just because they have bodyguard as a requirement doesn't mean that they have to use the same mechanicsHow does this new
nerfFAQ interact with Vanguard Style? Do I need to threaten the Wizard thats 400 feet away throwing the Fireball and still be next to my ally at the same time?What about using the Order of the Dragon's Aid Allies to improve a Saving Throw against a Poison, Disease or a retry against a Compulsion? Do I need to threaten the enemy as well?
There is no requirement to attack an opponent when aiding a reflex save, and the FAQ only requires that you meet the requirements of aid another,not the AOO.AId another doesn't have melee requirements except for AC and Attacks
Editing
For the order of the dragon it doesn't seem to require spending the aoo, so you'd just aid your ally the normal way (probably not requiring that you threaten unless you're aidng hit or AC)
Paizo: we have FaQed and clarified Bodyguard!
Everyone else: you f!!+ed up a perfectly good feat chain is what you did. Look at it. It's got anxiety.
The conservative thing to do would be to nerf it into oblivion, because if there's anything I've learned, is that if it's not Core, then it doesn't need to stay within the game.
Granted, it was always sketchy, and the original designer wasn't 100% clear on how Aid Another mechanics worked (so I guess you could blame him for this issue)...
Still, you got it about right. This makes Aid Another characters useless (which is a shame).
|
How does this new
nerfFAQ interact with Vanguard Style? Do I need to threaten the Wizard thats 400 feet away throwing the Fireball and still be next to my ally at the same time?What about using the Order of the Dragon's Aid Allies to improve a Saving Throw against a Poison, Disease or a retry against a Compulsion? Do I need to threaten the enemy as well?
The only Aid Another actions that require you to threaten the enemy are for attack and AC. There is no restriction on Aiding another for any other kind of check. "Expending a use of AoO" does not mean you actually make an attack, you are just spending a resource.
The only Aid Another actions that require you to threaten the enemy are for attack and AC. There is no restriction on Aiding another for any other kind of check. "Expending a use of AoO" does not mean you actually make an attack, you are just spending a resource.How does this new
nerfFAQ interact with Vanguard Style? Do I need to threaten the Wizard thats 400 feet away throwing the Fireball and still be next to my ally at the same time?What about using the Order of the Dragon's Aid Allies to improve a Saving Throw against a Poison, Disease or a retry against a Compulsion? Do I need to threaten the enemy as well?
Bodyguard was worded in that same exact way, and the devs still said "No, you run it like any other Aid Another check."
There's zero text that supports it to be able to subvert the restrictions of the Aid Another action, so yes; you must threaten both the spellcaster and the ally in order to Aid Another them.
This wouldn't be the first time they've invalidated other feats/options with a certain ruling (without taking them into consideration), it probably won't be the last, and plus, it's from a splatbook, the likelihood of it being clarified to work/not work falls under the same likelihood that Fencing Grace or Dervish Dance will be fixed to function like the Slashing Grace feat.
There's zero text that supports it to be able to subvert the restrictions of the Aid Another action, so yes; you must threaten both the spellcaster and the ally in order to Aid Another them.
What restriction in aid another requires you to threaten to aid saving throws?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You still need to fulfill the requirements for aid another, but using aid another only has other requirements when being used to boost attack and AC. Using aid another to do something other than boost attack or AC has no other requirements.
I guess we need another FAQ then.
When a Fix breaks more than it fixes there is an issue.
There's zero text that supports it to be able to subvert the restrictions of the Aid Another action, so yes; you must threaten both the spellcaster and the ally in order to Aid Another them.What restriction in aid another requires you to threaten to aid saving throws?
What makes the aid another option for saving throws different from any other sort of aid another in combat? Bodyguard has the same language as the ability in question that aids saving throws, and they said "No."
We can play 20 questions about this, but it won't solve anything, and the table variance will still certainly be there.
I know that at any PFS table, with this FAQ enforced, you would be required to threaten the target in order to aid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What makes the aid another option for saving throws different from any other sort of aid another in combat?
The rules.
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.
The ability to aid another with a saving through is a completely separate paragraph from aid another's ac or attack roll. Your ruling would get silly when you'd need to threaten the king to aid your bard courtier's diplomacy check.
Bodyguard has the same language as the ability in question that aids saving throws, and they said "No."
Body guard aids AC. AC requires threatening. Saves and skill throws do not. It has nothing to do with the language on bodyguard.
I know that at any PFS table, with this FAQ enforced, you would be required to threaten the target in order to aid.
DM's make up stuff sometimes by getting rules wrong, and thats what would have to happen there for a requirement on 2 uses of aid another to work with the others.
Reflavor it for your game. Based on your earlier post, I can tell you aren't much for PFS, so it isn't like you have anything stopping you.FAQ contrary to feat author's intent. This makes Mason sad, how will he protect the researchers he travels with from arrows and rays of death now?
Look at the Suicidal trait. Any character can pick it up via Adopted.
Its only once a day, but its what In Harms Way wishes it was.
That only works if you're a) willing to spend two traits, b) either willing to ignore trait flavor or willing to make your character adopted by tieflings.
Personally, I don't like to take traits only for the mechanical benefit. They're supposed to enhance flavor. For those who don't mind, though, and have a GM that doesn't mind (like the PFS GM hivemind), it works.
If you looked at my posts, you know that I'm fine reflavoring things for my game. I don't run every game I'm in, though. My posts meant exactly what they said.
You still need to fulfill the requirements for aid another, but using aid another only has other requirements when being used to boost attack and AC. Using aid another to do something other than boost attack or AC has no other requirements.
I'm not sure I buy that. That Vanguard Style expands the functionality of the aid another combat action doesn't seem like it would have any bearing on how you perform the aid another action, which is a melee attack roll against AC10
Body guard aids AC. AC requires threatening. Saves and skill throws do not. It has nothing to do with the language on bodyguard.
Then what do you roll for Vanguard Style's ability? You attempt the aid another action. How?
|
|
You still need to fulfill the requirements for aid another, but using aid another only has other requirements when being used to boost attack and AC. Using aid another to do something other than boost attack or AC has no other requirements.I'm not sure I buy that. That Vanguard Style expands the functionality of the aid another combat action doesn't seem like it would have any bearing on how you perform the aid another action, which is a melee attack roll against AC10
Body guard aids AC. AC requires threatening. Saves and skill throws do not. It has nothing to do with the language on bodyguard.Then what do you roll for Vanguard Style's ability? You attempt the aid another action. How?
Like any other Aid Another for a skill or saving throw. By rolling that save or skill check against a DC 10. (Notice that is different from an AC 10).
|
|
Bodyguard was worded in that same exact way, and the devs still said "No, you run it like any other Aid Another check."The only Aid Another actions that require you to threaten the enemy are for attack and AC. There is no restriction on Aiding another for any other kind of check. "Expending a use of AoO" does not mean you actually make an attack, you are just spending a resource.How does this new
nerfFAQ interact with Vanguard Style? Do I need to threaten the Wizard thats 400 feet away throwing the Fireball and still be next to my ally at the same time?What about using the Order of the Dragon's Aid Allies to improve a Saving Throw against a Poison, Disease or a retry against a Compulsion? Do I need to threaten the enemy as well?
Bodyguard is worded to Aid Another for Armor Class. Aid Another on attacks and AC uses a different rule than Aid Another for skills and saves.
There's zero text that supports it to be able to subvert the restrictions of the Aid Another action, so yes; you must threaten both the spellcaster and the ally in order to Aid Another them.
There is zero text to support your interpretation. The only restrictions for Aid Another apply to the attack and AC actions.
This wouldn't be the first time they've invalidated other feats/options with a certain ruling (without taking them into consideration), it probably won't be the last, and plus, it's from a splatbook, the likelihood of it being clarified to work/not work falls under the same likelihood that Fencing Grace or Dervish Dance will be fixed to function like the Slashing Grace feat.
Just because you want to see the worst in the ruling doesn't mean it's true. What you call ruinous, others think is fair and balanced.
Like any other Aid Another for a skill or saving throw. By rolling that save or skill check against a DC 10. (Notice that is different from an AC 10).
Near as I can tell there isn't an 'any other'. There are no rules for how aiding another's saving throw works that I've been able to find, only that you can do it (at least if you have vanguard style or are an order of the dragon cavalier).
Body guard aids AC. AC requires threatening. Saves and skill throws do not.
[citation needed]
I already know that skill checks don't, and that's because they have their own paragraph, but you can usually only aid once period, or not even at all, circumstances (and GM) withstanding, but you can't assume that Saves follow that same rules and restrictions, even if it would make sense for them to do so. This is precisely how Bodyguard was originally ran, before the FAQ came in and basically said it was wrong.
As much as I would like for it to make sense, the point here is that the rules don't say what you want them to imply, and the butchering of Bodyguard is a prime example of what happens when the rules don't say what you want them to imply.
|
|
Body guard aids AC. AC requires threatening. Saves and skill throws do not.This is precisely how Bodyguard was originally ran, before the FAQ came in and basically said it was wrong.
Why are you ignoring the very clear rules text that explicitly limited Aid Another to AC (such as Bodyguard) to occur when threatening an enemy? It's not like the PRD pulled that rule out of nowhere.
What you are pulling out of nowhere is the idea that a rule that explicitly applies to only attack and AC would somehow apply to saves. Why are you convinced that everything is ruined?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Body guard aids AC. AC requires threatening. Saves and skill throws do not.[citation needed]
Citation was given.
I already know that skill checks don't, and that's because they have their own paragraph
They share that paragraph with saves. The paragraph that has now been quoted twice. Any rationale for skills works for saves and vice versa.
You are actively trying to make it not work out of spite. I get that it sucks but casting asperions on people and trying to make it worse isn't going to help.
Citation was given.
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.
Your citation doesn't mention saving throws once. It also has absolutely no mechanics attached to it.
Your citation doesn't mention saving throws once. It also has absolutely no mechanics attached to it.Citation was given.
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.
Dude,
such as when he is affected by a spell
Its literally enlarged and bolded for you.
Body guard aids AC. AC requires threatening. Saves and skill throws do not.[citation needed]
Citation was given.
I already know that skill checks don't, and that's because they have their own paragraphThey share that paragraph with saves. The paragraph that has now been quoted twice. Any rationale for skills works for saves and vice versa.
You are actively trying to make it not work out of spite. I get that it sucks but casting asperions on people and trying to make it worse isn't going to help.
There is no paragraph for aiding saves, just as there's zero mention of being able to aid a saving throw, much less in the same paragraph that skill checks are (which is in the Skills section).
There are only two sections with Aid Another in the Core Rulebook. Let me cite their entries for you:
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.
Do you see "Saving Throw" or "Saves" anywhere in that entry? No? The closest thing we have to this is to "help a friend in other ways," which provides only a couple of examples, none of which would automatically lead to the conclusion that you could, most certainly, perform an Aid Another check to improve a Saving Throw. So let's try Aid Another in the Skills section (, which is what you say Aid Another for Saving Throws functions as).
You 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.
It's not there, either, is it? So really, all you're doing is extrapolating the concept of normally being able to Aid Another by an example of something else completely unrelated, either through Skills, or when being affected by a spell, even if it would make sense and be logical to treat it the same (which it would; remember that I'm not disputing that).
So no, I'm not "actively trying to make it not work out of spite," what I'm doing is saying that an assumption of what you want the rules to be, or what the rules should be, does not constitute as what the rules actually are, which are currently non-existent and entirely subject to GM FIAT.
Anyone else think it's kinda dumb that you need to threaten an attacker to Aid Another in the first place?
This whole situation would be resolved if Aid Another required being adjacent to the ally you want to help instead.
There is no paragraph for aiding saves, just as there's zero mention of being able to aid a saving throw,
This is not genuine.
This is not even an acceptable attempt at faking genuine.
You aid an ally when they're affected by spells. What on earth do you think that could POSSIBLY mean if not saves?
It means saves
You know it means saves.
Salt is bad for rules discussions.
Pedanticism is bad for rules discussions.
They make each other worse.
.
There is no paragraph for aiding saves, just as there's zero mention of being able to aid a saving throw,
This is not genuine.
This is not even an acceptable attempt at faking genuine.
You aid an ally when they're affected by spells. What on earth do you think that could POSSIBLY mean if not saves?
It means saves
You know it means saves.
Save the salt for the pretzels, it doesn't work with pedanticism
.
It could be for a strength check to break free, like in the case of Web. It could be for an illusion spell, giving them a re-roll with a +4 bonus. Stringent examples, sure, but there are still several ways you can aid with an ally affected by a spell without it having to be a saving throw, and I'm positive that they expand well beyond the examples I've provided.
Hence why I said it wouldn't automatically lead you to the conclusion that it applies to saving throws.
Plus, there are saving throws for things that aren't spells either, so treating an example statement as a blanket cure-all for something completely unrelated is quite a stretch to say the least.
@ Doomed Hero: That's already a listed requirement for Aid Another, no matter how you plan to do it. The problem isn't being adjacent to an ally, the problem is having to be adjacent to an enemy as well, which is, in my opinion, quite stupid, doubly so for improving an ally's AC.
There is no paragraph for aiding saves, just as there's zero mention of being able to aid a saving throw,
This is not genuine.
This is not even an acceptable attempt at faking genuine.
You aid an ally when they're affected by spells. What on earth do you think that could POSSIBLY mean if not saves?
It means saves
You know it means saves.
Salt is bad for rules discussions.
Pedanticism is bad for rules discussions.
They make each other worse.
A bit of Devil's Advocate but that could also apply to AC seeing as most spells still have to hit you. If you go with the "Affected means after it has hit" then there are remarkably few spells you could help on a save with either. Most spells have to hit and you have to fail the save against before you are affected by the spell. There really aren't many spells that let you make another save after you failed the first.
It could be for a strength check to break free, like in the case of Web. It could be for an illusion spell, giving them a re-roll with a +4 bonus. Stringent examples, sure, but there are still several ways you can aid with an ally affected by a spell without it having to be a saving throw, and I'm positive that they expand well beyond the examples I've provided.
You don't have a good argument for vanguard style being broken, but you demand an absolute 100% pedantic proof argument that it works. Your interpretation being 100% correct even when proven otherwise but everyone eles interpretations requiring absolute proof is not a legitimate standard to have in a rules discussion. Vanguard style is clearly helping someone with a spell, so it doesn't have the AC or hit clause that's plaguing bodyguard.
Making problems with the rules that aren't there cheapens and drowns out your and the fandoms ability to point out problems that are there. Blaming PFS for that level of pedanticism when you don't play PFS to know how it actually works tars the organization with your own prejudices. Getting the occasional DM that works that way does NOT make it official policy of the organization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude,
such as when he is affected by a spell
Its literally enlarged and bolded for you.
"such as when he is effected by a spell" is not the same as "when he makes a saving throw". Like at all. It's not even a "this is obvious" issue, because the two are completely different concepts. Some spells offer saves, but there are a number of spells that don't and a number of effects that offer saves that aren't spells.
Nevermind that, again, there are no described mechanics for HOW you're supposed to do this.
So even if we assume your myriad of assumptions are all correct, what do you roll? Does it apply to all saves or one specific save? How does targeting for it work?
You don't have a good argument for vanguard style being broken, but you demand an absolute 100% pedantic proof argument that it works. Your interpretation being 100% correct even when proven otherwise but everyone eles interpretations requiring absolute proof is not a legitimate standard to have in a rules discussion. Vanguard style is clearly helping someone with a spell, so it doesn't have the AC or hit clause that's plaguing bodyguard.
It's not pedantic to say 'hey this thing has basically no rules attached to it so maybe it's supposed to use the rules right above it?'
Not sure what all of the hostility is about though. I mean it's a really vague bit of rules text, wondering how it works and maybe referencing the other rules in the same section doesn't seem like that much of an atrocity.
It could be for a strength check to break free, like in the case of Web. It could be for an illusion spell, giving them a re-roll with a +4 bonus. Stringent examples, sure, but there are still several ways you can aid with an ally affected by a spell without it having to be a saving throw, and I'm positive that they expand well beyond the examples I've provided.You don't have a good argument for vanguard style being broken, but you demand an absolute 100% pedantic proof argument that it works. Your interpretation being 100% correct even when proven otherwise but everyone eles interpretations requiring absolute proof is not a legitimate standard to have in a rules discussion. Vanguard style is clearly helping someone with a spell, so it doesn't have the AC or hit clause that's plaguing bodyguard.
Making problems with the rules that aren't there cheapens and drowns out your and the fandoms ability to point out problems that are there. Blaming PFS for that level of pedanticism when you don't play PFS to know how it actually works tars the organization with your own prejudices. Getting the occasional DM that works that way does NOT make it official policy of the organization.
Vanguard Style is "broken," in that it probably doesn't work the way it was intended, just like how Bodyguard currently is (that is, it doesn't work the way the original developer intended it to). I think you mean that I claim it's overpowered; it's not, especially when there are other, more powerful options and methods out there. If not, then I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
To be clear, I never even said my interpretation was correct. In fact, I even stated in one of my posts that I want you to be right.
What I said, is that your interpretation can't be logically reached without extorting something that's not actually there, in the rules text, something which PFS certainly doesn't have the power to do unless they have houserules or FAQs which let them; in this case, I highly doubt it, otherwise you would've mentioned it.
You're taking "Aid Another can be used to help a friend affected by a spell," which is what the rules actually say, to mean "Aid Another can be used to aid any saving throw an ally has to make," which is what you want the rules to say, in an attempt to keep them coherent, consistent, and understandable. Which is a good thing, something that I would normally approve of.
But it is also a consequence that requires a very specific set of circumstances to even conceive, and a lot of assumptions and assertions, not stated or clarified within the rules, FAQ or otherwise, to adjudicate, most of which Squiggit has already addressed.
You also misunderstand my claim that I'm blaming PFS for a certain ruling. I'm not. I'm using it as a medium to point out that sticking by what the rules say, the conclusion you're reaching is practically impossible.
. I think you mean that I claim it's overpowered; it's not, especially when there are other, more powerful options and methods out there.
No, i mean broken as in non functional.
Vanguard style works just fine. you do not need to evade the rules or requirements of aiding another because the rules very much allow you to aid without threatening your opponent as long as you're not aiding for armor class or to hit.
Armor class and to hit have threaten requirements, other forms of aid do not. If you are aiding to give a save bonus you are clearly aiding a spell, not their armor class or to hit, so there is no threatening requirement.
You can try to make an argument that all of the requirements of aiding apply to all forms of aiding, or that aiding a saving throw isn't helping them when they're affected by a spell..but WHY on earth would you deliberately TRY to break it instead of just going with the obvious solution?
RAW it can work. You really need to twist raw to have it not work.
RAI it does what it says it does
Powerwise/functionally it does what it says it does and isn't over powered.
What I said, is that your interpretation can't be logically reached without extorting something that's not actually there
You are accusing me of extorting the rules because i used a basic level of human reading comprehension to say that the vanguard style giving you a saving throw bonus is helping you with a spell, and helping you with a spell does not have the reach clause.
The insult, and it is an insult, is not based in reality. Your argument are so thin that banal insults to my person are the only thing holding them together. If you cannot make an argument for your position without people that disagree with you being defective, reconsider your position.
in the rules text, something which PFS certainly doesn't have the power to do unless they have...
To call this horsefeathers would be an insult to any number of worthy hippogryphe mounts. You have vast misgivings about what PFS is and how it works.
PFS has DMs. Their job is to read the rules. The rules are written in more or less plainish english with some technical terms thrown in.
PFS, much to many a munchkins chagrin and disappointment, does not ascribe to a sola raw interpretation of the rules. PFS dm's decide what the words say pretty much the same way any other DM does and this includes them not always agreeing with each other. The requirements to dm are a PFS number, a PFS number, and a PFS number. None of which convey vast rules knowledge upon their recipients. There was recently produced a campaign clarifications document, but it fixes very obvious common sense raw vs rai problems interpretations very much along the lines of how most people were running them anyway.
Vanguard style has a clause that says you aid another with a bonus as an immediate reaction instead of a standard.
Aiding another against a spell does not require threatening.
Vanguard style works.
Yes, PFS dm's certainly ARE empowered to make that common sense space between two blocks of the pyramid leap of logic. That is the smallest and easiest judgement call I will make in a game. I have run about 130 pfs games, played in at least as many across 5 states over 5 years. I don't think I've seen a single DM that would break vanguard style like you are. Your requirement of absolute 100% logic devoid of sense and reason for a decision is not only not required in pfs, it's extremely rare if not non existent.
Your concerns about pfs are completely unfounded.
Your concerns about vanguard style are unfounded.
Yes, this really sucks for bodyguard. It can't block arrows. That is a use problem for guarding someone's body. That is a legitimate complaint, direct your grarg there.
Nevermind that, again, there are no described mechanics for HOW you're supposed to do this.
you spend a standard action.
You've aided.
if you mean what is your character doing? Agains a dominate person you're probably yelling at them saying "I KNOW YOU"RE IN THERE< SNAP OUT OF IT!" against a hold person you might be smacking them around.
So even if we assume your myriad of assumptions are all correct
barbs like this (and there are a lot of them) are one reason why you're getting the hostility.
It's not pedantic to say 'hey this thing has basically no rules attached to it so maybe it's supposed to use the rules right above it?'
It very much is, because if it was supposed to be using those rules it would be incorpated right above them with 2 additional words.
But it's not. Which is screaming at you NOT to use those rules.
Not sure what all of the hostility is about though.
A few backhanded insults I'd throw you off my game for, but mostly it's the way you're parading an arbitrary AND pedantic AND non functional reading of the rules as the way i HAVE to read it or i'm shoehorning/cheating/etc. It's the trifecta of bad rules interpretation (Not raw, not rai, doesn't work) and I'm being told i'm cheating for not using it.
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.
You can aid another affected by a sleep spell to wake an ally: "Awakening a creature is a standard action (an application of the aid another action)."
I believe this is the actual use case referred to in bold ital above. The wording of the rule is general because it is intended to allow for future possible other uses of Aid Another for specific future spells, or for DMs to allow creativity.
For example, if one's ally is affected by Calm Emotions, one can end the effect by attacking the ally. Seems reasonable to also allow an Aid Another attempt to end the Calm. That would be a house rule, however. Calm Emotions says, "Any aggressive action against or damage dealt to a calmed creature immediately breaks the spell on all calmed creatures."
You say, "Okay, I slap Joe to make him come out of it. Not hard enough to cause damage, but aggressive for sure."
DM says, "Okay, that's an Aid Another attempt and it takes a standard action to use."
=====
Side note: Other unusual ways to use Aid Another include ...
Witch Coven Hex: "In addition, whenever the witch with this hex is within 30 feet of another witch with this hex, she can use the aid another action to grant a +1 bonus to the other witch's caster level for 1 round."
Grappling with multiple allies: "The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check."
Side note in case I was not clear: I personally do not think the rules allow you to use Aid Another to give an ally a bonus to a saving throw, except perhaps with the special case of certain illusions: "If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus" -- note that this is not labelled an Aid Another effect, but awakening from Sleep explicitly is.
. I think you mean that I claim it's overpowered; it's not, especially when there are other, more powerful options and methods out there.No, i mean broken as in non functional.
Vanguard style works just fine. you do not need to evade the rules or requirements of aiding another because the rules very much allow you to aid without threatening your opponent as long as you're not aiding for armor class or to hit.
Armor class and to hit have threaten requirements, other forms of aid do not. If you are aiding to give a save bonus you are clearly aiding a spell, not their armor class or to hit, so there is no threatening requirement.
You can try to make an argument that all of the requirements of aiding apply to all forms of aiding, or that aiding a saving throw isn't helping them when they're affected by a spell..but WHY on earth would you deliberately TRY to break it instead of just going with the obvious solution?
What I said, is that your interpretation can't be logically reached without extorting something that's not actually thereYou are accusing me of extorting the rules because i used a basic level of human reading comprehension to say that the vanguard style giving you a saving throw bonus is helping you with a spell, and helping you with a spell does not have the reach clause.
The insult, and it is an insult, is not based in reality. Your argument are so thin that banal insults to my person are the only thing holding them together. If you cannot make an argument for your position without people that disagree with you being defective, reconsider your position.
in the rules text, something which PFS certainly doesn't have the power to do unless they have...To call this horsefeathers would be an insult to any number of worthy hippogryphe mounts. You have vast misgivings about what PFS is and how it works.
PFS has DMs. Their job is to read the rules. The rules are written in more or less...
For starters, just the base Vanguard Style alone is pretty overpowered, when we go with what's written. Let's take our two PCs and compare them, shall we?
To begin, the Vanguard Style feat says:
Your ally gains a +2 bonus to all Reflex saves while adjacent to you until the beginning of your next turn.
So, this means that while the style is active, you're giving a +2 AC bonus to all allies adjacent to you. Pretty nice buff, eh? Next, we factor in your rule of Aid Another for Saves. That's another +2 on the next Reflex Save they make, providing a +4. There's also the matter of this text here:
While using this style, when an adjacent ally is required to make a Reflex saving throw, you can expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s Reflex save.
This means that you can then spend an AoO and grant them yet another +2. That provides an extra +6 total at the end of it all, which is extremely powerful since it's only 3 feats.
Clearly, that's not how it works or adds up, and it's obvious hyperbole (though a plausible interpretation), but disregarding that, based on your rule, that can easily become a +4 bonus, which is still pretty damn impressive.
Next, you're assuming that aiding a save bonus is intended for a spell, and nothing else. It could be a Spell-Like Ability. It could be a Supernatural Ability. It could be an Extraordinary Ability. It could be a class feature. It could be from a trap. It could be some other environmental subject.
It doesn't matter what it is, the point is that you're using a convoluted book example (aiding an ally for a spell, which is quite open as to how you're aiding that ally against a given spell, such as by warning it's an illusion for an ally who failed the save) as proof for a blanket statement that you can use aid another for something that's not concretely stated, both as to whether you can aid it, but also, as Squiggit pointed out, as to how it is being aided, and that's relevant for right now, when it comes to Vanguard Style as it's written.
Expanding upon his point, sure, you can assume that if you are aiding, for example, a Reflex Save, that you make a check at DC 10 with your own Reflex Save, and that makes sense. But that doesn't make it the rules as they currently are, nor does it mean that's exactly what Paizo intended, if only because it makes sense and it's circular. They can just as easily rule that it's a flat Dexterity check with a DC 10, or they can just rule that it's a flat roll entirely, making it a 55/45 shot, no matter what. I don't know that, you don't know that, and making assumptions and assertions on the rules because it makes sense (to you, perhaps not to others), to provide an authentic rules answer for a board member, is misleading. (inb4 "Pot Meet Kettle" statements)
And quite frankly, that same line of thinking was given with Bodyguard. It makes sense to allow Bodyguard to work with any attack, as long as you were adjacent to your ally when the attack was made. But that doesn't mean Bodyguard works that way, nor should we have assumed for it to, because we have rules that stated otherwise.
Now, you say "But aiding in that manner requires threatening!" Fine, it does. That's why it doesn't work the way that makes sense; because there are rules that say it doesn't work the way that makes sense.
Yet, the inverse of that is likewise true: There aren't rules that say it does work that way, in regards to aiding another for saving throws. Therefore, it becomes a GM FIAT call, which is again, not much of an authentic rules answer, because the end result can vary wildly, from "Yes, it works, and it does X," to "No, nor does it do Y."
And because of this minor clause here:
The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.
That's the book basically saying "Yeah, GM FIAT can certainly screw you over on stuff that may or may not be normally possible."
Hurray! I'm glad this finally got a FAQ. I was extremely sad at how poorly the rules surrounding my order of the dragon cavalier were written, and this was one of a large number of vague situations with multiple possible interpretations that popped up while I was building him. More clarity is good.
Edit: For bodyguarding, I also like the Covering Defense feat. Can easily give +10 AC or more if built for it. Stacks poorly with actual bodyguard feat though, since you can't take the AOOs while using it.
So, this means that while the style is active, you're giving a +2 AC bonus to all allies adjacent to you.
I have no idea where you're getting that +2 to ac.
Pretty nice buff, eh? Next, we factor in your rule of Aid Another for Saves. That's another +2 on the next Reflex Save they make, providing a +4.
IF they stacked (and i don't think that your aid another and your aid another would, because they're the same source) using a regular aid another would eat up your standard action, which is a pretty hefty price you don't seem to have considered at all in your evaluation.
ext, you're assuming that aiding a save bonus is intended for a spell, and nothing else..
No. I'm not. I have no idea where you're getting that.
This means that you can then spend an AoO and grant them yet another +2. That provides an extra +6 total at the end of it all, which is extremely powerful since it's only 3 feats.
No. And this is what happens when you digest things into sentences without reading them as a whole.
While using this style, when an adjacent ally is required to make a Reflex saving throw, you can expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s Reflex save. Your ally gains a +2 bonus to all Reflex saves while adjacent to you until the beginning of your next turn.
You turn on the style, the fireball comes, you spend an AOO. They gain a +2. It's the same +2 (or whatever your aid another is after your helpful halfling adopted by dwarves gets you for aiding) I have no idea what your thought process is for stacking that third +2 on there.
They can just as easily rule that it's a flat Dexterity check with a DC 10, or they can just rule that it's a flat roll entirely, making it a 55/45 shot,]
You are not trying to understand the rules, at all. You are insisting that the rules must be written in an absolutely objective legalistic manner and they most certainly are not.
You have to deal with that as a human being and not a computererized demon devil thing. It's part of the game.
there is no mechanic for what you have to do in vanguard style because i'm right: when you're aiding a saving throw you don't need to make a check. A check is needed against AC 10 to aid AC or to hit. It's not needed to help against a spell.
If the interpretation makes sense, consistantly fits multiple parts, if it's not over powered, and it's one legitimate way of reading the raw, go with it. Trying to dismiss what I'm saying as shoe horning or not raw is merely an insult without substance.
Trying to call three feats a standard action and a bunch of aoo's to get a +4 bonus to reflex saves overpowered so that meaning CAN"T be in there is beyond ridiculous. That argument is not going to go anywhere.
You are TRYING to make it not work.
It's still working despite your best efforts.
You need to take the grarg back where it belongs or all the developers are going to see is grarg everywhere.
If they see grarg everywhere then grarg loses it's effectiveness to point out where the actual problems are. (I can't block arrows being a biggy)
there is no mechanic for what you have to do in vanguard style because i'm right: when you're aiding a saving throw you don't need to make a check. A check is needed against AC 10 to aid AC or to hit. It's not needed to help against a spell.Er, what? When you aid another for a skill check, you roll against DC 10 to give them a +2. When you aid another for attack or AC bonuses, you roll against AC 10 to give them a +2.
Are you really suggesting that there is no check to aid another for saving throws? And that they automatically get a +2? Where on earth do you see the mechanical rules for that? Unlike the above (skill, ac, attack), I can't find those specific mechanics anywhere in the rules.
hmmm. You're right. The rules for that are over in skills.
Aid Another
You 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.
But it's a LONG way from there's no mechanic to aid saving throws to Vanguard style not working because you don't threaten.
|
Let's break down the different methods of using aid another to increase AC through the Bodyguard/Vanguard feat chain;
Aid another to increase AC - Must threaten the attacker (i.e. you are basically disrupting the attack) and spend a standard action.
Bodyguard - Instead of a standard action you may use an AoO to aid another to increase an ally's AC, but you also have to be adjacent to that ally.
Vanguard Hustle - In addition to other effects, you can make an AoO to aid another to increase an ally's AC so long as both the ally and the attacker are within the range of your Combat Patrol threatened area (e.g. normal threatened area + 5' per 5 BAB). Requires a full-round action to perform the combat patrol.
Note that base 'aid another' and 'vanguard hustle' should have worked as described above at all tables both before and after the FAQ. Only Bodyguard has 'changed' and only for the tables which didn't interpret it as written (i.e. no mention of aid another requirements being discarded & Protector familiar listing an exception to the threaten requirement).
it lets you use Aid Another to increase an Ally's Reflex Save. You have to be adjacent to your Ally and Threatening your Ally's Attacker.
There is NO rules support, at all, for this position. Your reflex save is neither AC nor to hit, which are the only aid another options that require that you threaten.
"Excuse me sir, why are you holding that dagger and advancing on the king?
"OH! I just need to aid my friends diplomacy check and i can't do that without threatening.
Its NOT the raw
It's not the rai
It's not balanced.
There's no reason to rule that way.
I'm just saying that there are no rules mechanisms anywhere for boosting saving throws, outside the vanguard style.
This is what I have been saying from the start.
But people think that there really is, just based off of a tangential sentence that may or may not be relevant to their argument based off of specific circumstances, and apparently I'm the bad guy for disagreeing with their assessment, and explaining myself as to why I disagree.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just saying that there are no rules mechanisms anywhere for boosting saving throws, outside the vanguard style.
There aren't really any 'rules mechanisms' for it in Vanguard Style either... just the statement that you can use an AoO to do it and that the bonus is +2.
Also, the Order of the Dragon Cavalier 'Aid Allies' ability increases aid another bonuses... specifically including those to saving throw checks.
We could assume that aid another for saving throws follows standard conventions (e.g. make a save yourself at DC 10), but aid another is usually a standard action you have to perform BEFORE the check to be aided... and you usually don't know in advance that your ally is about to need to make a saving throw.
Vanguard Style takes care of that by allowing the aid as an immediate action, but it doesn't explain the Cavalier ability or the reference to aiding against spells in the CRB.
it lets you use Aid Another to increase an Ally's Reflex Save. You have to be adjacent to your Ally and Threatening your Ally's Attacker.There is NO rules support, at all, for this position. Your reflex save is neither AC nor to hit, which are the only aid another options that require that you threaten.
"Excuse me sir, why are you holding that dagger and advancing on the king?
"OH! I just need to aid my friends diplomacy check and i can't do that without threatening.
Its NOT the raw
It's not the rai
It's not balanced.There's no reason to rule that way.
It's not the RAW because skill checks have their own exception, and their own section.
Saving Throws do not, nor can you assume that they have it, because it's not explicitly listed. But, I'll go ahead and play along with your interpretation, if only to point something very crucial out to your argument.
Originally, we were talking about Vanguard Style, which gives a special ability to aid a Reflex Saving throw for an ally, as an AoO, no less. Now, if we were going to argue that giving Saving Throws is a normal ability, that anyone can do, all this feat does is work as a "Bodyguard" feat for Saving Throws, which not only diminishes its raw power and ability, but also throws into question, "Why is Bodyguard a feat requirement?" Outside of flavor purposes, this is the same excuse as to why Combat Expertise is a feat requirement for most every single other "decent" combat feat in the game; flavor, and feat taxing, because as you've pointed out with your base rules, Bodyguard has zero impact on your ability to Aid Another with Saving Throws, so needing an irrelevant feat like Bodyguard for a relevant ability like Vanguard Style is absolutely ridiculous.
Not the point I was trying to make, but merely an interesting observation when taking your interpretation, in that Bodyguard has become the next Combat Expertise. Funny, isn't it?
Of course, this certainly isn't the only ability that works in the above fashion. There are other abilities that allow you to aid Saves, such as specific Cavalier Orders. More closely, the Order of the Dragon's Aid Allies ability.
Now, if you could aid Saving Throws normally, from the beginning, then abilities such as this one:
At 2nd level, whenever an order of the dragon cavalier uses the aid another action to assist one of his allies, the ally receives a +3 bonus to his Armor Class, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check. At 8th level, and every six levels thereafter, this bonus increases by an additional +1.
Would be pointlessly redundant. According to you, we already know that you can aid AC, to-hit, saves, or skill checks normally, so why point out that you're aiding what you can normally aid, when the base rules already say that very same thing?
If anything, all that text would have to say is this:
At 2nd level, whenever an order of the dragon cavalier uses the aid another action to assist one of his allies, the ally receives an additional +1 to his aid another bonus. At 8th level, and every six levels thereafter, this additional bonus increases by +1.
And we would get the very same meaning, without having to point out what you can and can't aid another (because the base rules already cover it).
Except, you and I (hopefully) both know that's not what would happen, if we went with the second set of text.
What would happen, is you'd have players that don't know if they can aid Saving Throws or not. (At least, I know I would certainly pose that question.) So then we'd have to make a FAQ as to whether or not you can normally aid Saving Throws, which can result in answers like "Yes, you can, and this will be reflected in the next errata," or "Yes, you can, but only with this ability, and it is an exception to the general rule," (Which results in a "No, you normally can't"), or just flat out saying "No," which means the Cavalier ability only works with Attacks, AC, or Skill checks, something that may or may not be intended by the original designer of the Cavalier ability.
So I will ask you, why would we go through the trouble of citing what you can and can't aid with a special ability, if it does, in fact, change nothing as to how you do or do not aid, except in the manner of improving your aid another bonus?