Ending the Meta of 'Aiding-Another'


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

I will be brief, but a few weeks ago I was GM'ing a group of fellow PFS members, a few of whom I didn't know very well. The group contained a total of 5 players. A Bard and Cleric with fair to good Diplomacy skills, etc. and 3 other players who had each dumped their Charisma to 7 or 8.

Normally this wouldn't be a problem and I am sure we have seen these type of character(s) before. Not every character needs (or should have) a high Diplomacy skill, but I was then confronted by the 'Meta-Gamer.'

While the Bard (who has a +8) Diplomacy skill is trying to persuade an NPC to allow them to enter into a restricted area (blah, blah). The Cleric then adds, "I will also tell the guard about the importance of our mission, can I aid the Bard?" I respond yes and the Cleric (at +5) then rolls and obtains a result of 15 or so- successfully aiding (vs. 10).

Before I begin back with the NPC, one of the other players immediately pipes up, "Hey I am going to aid too!" Then proceeds to roll dice and tell the player next to him to roll also. I ask them if they really want to do that and the first player responds, "Yeah it doesn't matter anyway, even if we fail." I then advised them while that might be true in some situations, in this particular case, if they missed their aid another check by more than 5, then I would impose a -2 modifier to the overall result. I explained that Diplomacy relies not just on saying the right things, but also not saying the wrong things, as well as there being a particular mechanism for a particularly bad roll (for Diplomacy). Needless to say, neither successfully aided, while one of the players actually failed by more than 5 (the target roll was 10).

I was then told for the next 5 minutes how I am the only GM to ever have interpreted the last sentence of the aid other (when applied to skills) the way I did- i.e. 'The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.'

This gets me to my point regarding the very common META of PFS. Should we (collectively) assign some limitations/guidelines to the use of the Aid Another action in addition to those found in the Core Rulebook? I think skills like Diplomacy and Bluff (and a few others) should have consequences for failed aid attempts. What about other skills? Perhaps saying that only a character with a +0 or better can aid? This was suggested by one of the players. I for one, wouldn't like to see it, but there does seem to be a huge amount of 'aiding-another' going on. Maybe some guidelines on how many players can aid? There seems to be a wide array of table variation within PFS... which is often good, but this might be one of those occasions where might need to tighten things up within PFS.

This is just food for thought and to initiate a constructive discussion... I can't be the only one out there who has thought about this before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For what it's worth I would have ruled the same as you.
That said I think the rules work fine as is: you want to help despite having an abysmal skill? You are free to risk it but remember you could very well end causing things to fail.
As for further restrictions I would feel free to deny players a roll of aid another if they weren't in the immediate vicinities of the character taking the main check (i.e. the bard tries diplomacy but 2 characters are on the other side of the street, I could rule they can't notice what's going on or that it takes too long for them to join the discussion and for their "help" to matter).

The Exchange

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Changing the rules (like applying penalties) = no.

However I do limit who can aid. For social situations (usually Diplomacy) I only allow players who actually do participate in the conversation. They can't just say "I roll aid," they have to have role-played some. When exploring an area there may not be enough room for more than one or two (or maybe zero) to aid in a perception, disable, or similar check.

And don't forget the other limitation of Aid Another:

Quote:
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.

Grand Lodge

Kevin Willis wrote:

Changing the rules (like applying penalties) = no.

However I do limit who can aid. For social situations (usually Diplomacy) I only allow players who actually do participate in the conversation. They can't just say "I roll aid," they have to have role-played some. When exploring an area there may not be enough room for more than one or two (or maybe zero) to aid in a perception, disable, or similar check.

And don't forget the other limitation of Aid Another:

Quote:
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.

Ok. So are you of the opinion that the only person who can 'blow' the roll for a Diplomacy check is the person actually making the roll (the main character)? Why not just make EVERY character who is interacting with said NPC make their own individual rolls and adjust reactions accordingly?

I do agree with the 'role-playing' requirement as well as having the appropriate languages, etc. necessary to interact properly, but that isn't actually a requirement of the rules either. So in effect, that could be considered changing the rules also. I am not trying to be snide, but the rule for aiding another is rather broad and the last sentence does leave it rather open (to the GM).

If PFS added a guideline for Diplomacy that required actual role-playing by each participant, I would support that as it begins to break down the idea of Meta.


I think that this would actually apply to many kinds of aid another, and in dnd 4e, that is how it worked. Inthink successful aid gave
+2, failed gave -1. I liked the rule and think it helped. That said, it is not how Pathfinder works. While I'd have no problem with this in a home game, I don't know as I'm comfortable with it as a GM fiat in PFS, and it seems a big change from RAW for the campaign. I do agree with restricting aid to those actually doing something. Also, I appreciate that you at least warned them up front of the penalty risk.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber

If anything, just a -2 penalty for a blown Aid check might be generous. A really bad Diplomacy roll on an attempt to Aid Another could be legitimately interpreted by the GM as the would-be aider having unwittingly committed a terrible faux-pas. It could blow the entire Diplomacy check. That's a bit harsh, but not an unreasonable interpretation, given what's really going on in-world. A circumstance penalty (and we're always allowed to apply circumstance bonuses and penalties if they're warranted, so no rules-changing is going on here) that comes from your companion having just blown it is less harsh, reasonable, makes sense in-game, and also fights the meta-aiding the OP talks about (and that kind of bugs me too).

I mean, heck, if one of the other characters came in and insulted the people with whom the party is negotiating, but the insulter didn't roll Diplomacy (aid or otherwise) at all, it's be entirely reasonable for there to be a circumstance penalty for somebody else trying to negotiate thereafter, for now not only do they have to ask what they were trying to ask, they have to smooth over their companion's goof.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

10 people marked this as a favorite.

On one hand, your interpretation is based in the rules: Diplomacy does specify that failure by 5 or more can increase the subject's hostility. Aid Another in that context is a type of Diplomacy skill check.

On the other hand, I think that your interpretation may be counterproductive toward the behavior we want to see from the players. We want players involved and engaged, not tuning out while the "diplomancer" does his thing. As such, I recommend that players be required to specify how they are attempting to aid, but not be penalized for failure. That maximizes their involvement while clarifying their activity in the game world.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Willis wrote:

Changing the rules (like applying penalties) = no.

He's not changing the rules. You certainly CAN get to his interpretation (and I've used the same one before) from what's there. You can also get to other more or less lenient interpretations as well. (like the full -5/one step down if they botch it). Its not the way the rules say they work but its a way the rules say they work.

Being one of the most used and subjective skills in PFS I've seen a lot of table variation on how diplomacy works

-you have to talk to aid another or try to roll (which gets unweildy in unline games)

-everyone rolls , I'll take the highest the others are aiding

-Declare a main, everyone else is aiding

-The PC of the player talking to me the most is the main, everyone else is aiding.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally wouldn't penalize people failing to aid another on a diplomacy effect, and rarely do I enforce the rule that players need to be able to achieve success on their own to aid another when using diplomacy checks.

A lot of times the Diplomacy DC needs Aid Another in order for the PC's to be reasonably successful without a diplomacy expert. And preventing players from aiding another in a social situation can prevent players from speaking up at the table. I do normally require the people aiding another to say something whether it's in character or just a summary of what they are trying to say to help.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I like folks to at least tell me what they are trying to do to aid. I get that not all people like to interact socially in that fashion. So merely saying, "I wanna say something witty that will make the guy laugh and maybe bring his guard down a bit."

Perfectly acceptable. You are telling me what you are trying to do, and what your goal is.

Sometimes, though, when we have a time crunch situation, going around the table and getting every person who's aiding's statement can be a place where you can cut a corner and save some time. I've done that as well too. Just let them roll.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.

When the Wis 07 Paladin attempts to Aid the Rogue's Perception, do you apply a –2 to the Rogue for a botched roll by the Paladin?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
When the Wis 07 Paladin attempts to Aid the Rogue's Perception, do you apply a –2 to the Rogue for a botched roll by the Paladin?

Who allows aid on perception at all?

Scarab Sages

For me, it seems the DCs of diplomacy take the aid other rules into consideration already. As not every table has a diplomancer, I find it best to be lenient on the aid other rolls. Especially since I've seen many times everyone at the table roll and everyone aids and the roll still just barely beats the DC.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
When the Wis 07 Paladin attempts to Aid the Rogue's Perception, do you apply a –2 to the Rogue for a botched roll by the Paladin?

*clankclankclankclank* DO YOU HEAR ANYTHING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DOOR?!?*clankclankclankclank*

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

I like folks to at least tell me what they are trying to do to aid. I get that not all people like to interact socially in that fashion. So merely saying, "I wanna say something witty that will make the guy laugh and maybe bring his guard down a bit."

Perfectly acceptable. You are telling me what you are trying to do, and what your goal is.

Sometimes, though, when we have a time crunch situation, going around the table and getting every person who's aiding's statement can be a place where you can cut a corner and save some time. I've done that as well too. Just let them roll.

I agree. PFS is built with a time limit. I like to hear something to the effect of what the character intends to do to help, but not everyone can fully participate in every conversation without bogging the game down.

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessex wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
When the Wis 07 Paladin attempts to Aid the Rogue's Perception, do you apply a –2 to the Rogue for a botched roll by the Paladin?
Who allows aid on perception at all?

Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Jessex wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
When the Wis 07 Paladin attempts to Aid the Rogue's Perception, do you apply a –2 to the Rogue for a botched roll by the Paladin?
Who allows aid on perception at all?
Pathfinder.

It would depend on the use of perception. You probably can't help someone hear an ambush coming but even holding papers as you search a desk would be handy.

Sczarni

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Jessex wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
When the Wis 07 Paladin attempts to Aid the Rogue's Perception, do you apply a –2 to the Rogue for a botched roll by the Paladin?
Who allows aid on perception at all?
Pathfinder.
It would depend on the use of perception. You probably can't help someone hear an ambush coming but even holding papers as you search a desk would be handy.

Reactive versus Active.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Jessex wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
When the Wis 07 Paladin attempts to Aid the Rogue's Perception, do you apply a –2 to the Rogue for a botched roll by the Paladin?
Who allows aid on perception at all?
Pathfinder.

For passive perception (did you spot the ambush?) not usually.

For active perception (We search the room for loot!) Sure.

Nefreet, the difference between perception and diplomacy, is that perception does not have the same chance for adverse effects as diplomacy. If you fail perception by 5, you do not get a worse result than if you fail it by 1.

For the record, while I can't usually be bothered to implement it (because locally, people are often beating diplo DCs by 10, and I would rather encourage people to get in on the role-play aspect. Id do require people to tell me what they are doing to aid.) I fully support BNW and Pat Lowinger's interpretation.

But then I also allow people to use other skills to aid. (I roll knowledge nobility to explain why what we are asking him to do is actually the honorable thing to do. )


Nefreet wrote:
When the Wis 07 Paladin attempts to Aid the Rogue's Perception, do you apply a –2 to the Rogue for a botched roll by the Paladin?

Yes. The paladin wanted to help but ended up distracting the rogue instead of helping him

Silver Crusade

12 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
When the Wis 07 Paladin attempts to Aid the Rogue's Perception, do you apply a –2 to the Rogue for a botched roll by the Paladin?
*clankclankclankclank* DO YOU HEAR ANYTHING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DOOR?!?*clankclankclankclank*

Alternatively:

Paladin: "Oh, oh, oh! Look! Look! Over there!"
*grabs Rogue to have her look over at where he's pointing*
Rogue: "... that's a bunny."
Paladin: "Yeah!"
Rogue: "We're not looking for bunnies."
Paladin: "... oh."


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I discourage adding penalties for a failed aid not for rules reasons but for community growth and table culture reasons.

Being able to aid gives a player a small bit of engagement where they would otherwise have none. If they are penalized for aiding they must do nothing during a social encounter out of fear of making things worse, alternatively if they have a chance to help they can participate to a lesser degree and are more involved at the table (big fan of the 'how do you aid' question, and asking some small degree of roleplaying or narrative).

Sczarni

Rogar Valertis wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
When the Wis 07 Paladin attempts to Aid the Rogue's Perception, do you apply a –2 to the Rogue for a botched roll by the Paladin?
Yes. The paladin wanted to help but ended up distracting the rogue instead of helping him

Does that interfere with the tenet of "Cooperate"?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Livgin wrote:

I discourage adding penalties for a failed aid not for rules reasons but for community growth and table culture reasons.

Being able to aid gives a player a small bit of engagement where they would otherwise have none. If they are penalized for aiding they must do nothing during a social encounter out of fear of making things worse, alternatively if they have a chance to help they can participate to a lesser degree and are more involved at the table (big fan of the 'how do you aid' question, and asking some small degree of roleplaying or narrative).

I really encourage this especially when dealing with the 2 skill point per level classes. It is unreasonable to assume that they will have skill points in many different skills so if they role play their aiding or come up with some creative way to use the skills they do have I tend to let them have a go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
When the Wis 07 Paladin attempts to Aid the Rogue's Perception, do you apply a –2 to the Rogue for a botched roll by the Paladin?
Yes. The paladin wanted to help but ended up distracting the rogue instead of helping him
Does that interfere with the tenet of "Cooperate"?

Nope. Sometimes people make mistakes (in PF they roll below the required DC), it's something implicit to the system and I don't see any reasons to change it.

You may very well want to help but you might fail to do so and sometimes in your eagernes (or incompetence or by sheer misfortune or whatever) to help you might even hinder or cause your friends to fail.
To interfere with "cooperate" the player would need to fail on purpose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
When the Wis 07 Paladin attempts to Aid the Rogue's Perception, do you apply a –2 to the Rogue for a botched roll by the Paladin?
Yes. The paladin wanted to help but ended up distracting the rogue instead of helping him
Does that interfere with the tenet of "Cooperate"?

Sometimes the best thing you can do is nothing at all

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

In my personal experience, the Metagame of Aid Another is a pretty positive thing. As mentioned before, it nurtures the Cooperation aspect of Society play, as well as giving the quieter folks a chance to roleplay. Simply asking a player to give a summary of what their character says is just fine.

I find it to be a healthier alternative to the game than the old low-skill 'metagame' that certain low-skill classes encourage with their 2 + Int points on classes that have no other use for the stat. It's entirely possible that a player can end up with a character that has little to do outside of initiative rolls, or at least a character that doesn't have anything that immediately makes the player say "Oh, I should do this!" as much as Versatile Performance or Trapfinding can.

Besides, even if it can leapfrog DCs, it usually ends up making the party face all the happier for the high roll while the entire team got to contribute. And I'm okay with any aspect of a scenario being blown out of the water if everyone is having fun with it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
When the Wis 07 Paladin attempts to Aid the Rogue's Perception, do you apply a –2 to the Rogue for a botched roll by the Paladin?
Yes. The paladin wanted to help but ended up distracting the rogue instead of helping him

McStab is searching the room for the secret door we think is there, Mason retrieves his ioun torch to provide more light and then stands very still so the clanking of his armor does not distract McStab.

perception (aid): 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (9) + 4 = 13

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those bringing up the issue of promoting the 'Cooperate' component within PFS, I fully support and understand that line of thinking. I also realize that there are some classes (Cleric and Fighter for example) that tend to have less skill points per level than other classes.

But maybe...just maybe if penalties were assigned to aid another checks, some players would be less inclined to dump stats like Wisdom or Charisma and be inclined to take traits which give them access to bonuses to Diplomacy or other non-class skills- often making them a class-skill.

For example the Fighter takes the 'Friend in Every Town' trait and makes Knowledge local a class skill (or Diplomacy) and gets a +1 bonus on those skills. Even with base stats of 10 in Charisma and Intelligence the character can be reasonably certain to help the party out in certain situations... rather than taking Reactionary or some other 'in combat' usable trait.

Or maybe...again just maybe, some players look at utilizing Archetypes which give them more class skills and skill points, such as the Tactician or Lore Warden.

Just a few thoughts... nothing in stone.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pat Lowinger wrote:

But maybe...just maybe if penalties were assigned to aid another checks, some players would be less inclined to dump stats like Wisdom or Charisma and be inclined to take traits which give them access to bonuses to Diplomacy or other non-class skills- often making them a class-skill.

For example the Fighter takes the 'Friend in Every Town' trait and makes Knowledge local a class skill (or Diplomacy) and gets a +1 bonus on those skills. Even with base stats of 10 in Charisma and Intelligence the character can be reasonably certain to help the party out in certain situations... rather than taking Reactionary or some other 'in combat' usable trait.

Or maybe...again just maybe, some players look at utilizing Archetypes which give them more class skills and skill points, such as the Tactician or Lore Warden.

Just a few thoughts... nothing in stone.

Some very nice thoughs there. I've had many of the same. In fact, I'd almost prefer Lore Warden to be the baseline. And while I acknowledge that Charisma is the de facto dump stat, I do wish it had more universal appeal. Like how Dex gives initiative, or Wis for will saves.

That again, I could also see the reliance on Diplavy as a "content gate" to be a minor flaw. Intimidate tends to be a bridge-burner at best, and bluff is all-or-nothing. The variety os great, but it feels like Diplomacy and Perception are the only skills that regularly make or break an adventure, and those low skill classes can't reliably boost those skills without build deviations or having social traits take over as the "too good to pass up" options, making them Reactionary + Indominable Faith all over again.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rosc wrote:
Pat Lowinger wrote:
Or maybe...again just maybe, some players look at utilizing Archetypes which give them more class skills and skill points, such as the Tactician or Lore Warden.
Some very nice thoughs there. I've had many of the same. In fact, I'd almost prefer Lore Warden to be the baseline. And while I acknowledge that Charisma is the de facto dump stat, I do wish it had more universal appeal. Like how Dex gives initiative, or Wis for will saves.

Well, Lore Warden only barely helps, since it only gives extra skill points for knowledge, not general purposes.

And it makes you a low armor manuever based fighter, which isn't really what I want for a baseline.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I usually help the party diplomacy by waiting in the other room.

gnome, with -7 diplomacy...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

what exactly is "the meta" i keep hearing this in gaming and its gotten like special snowflake where people just pile it everywhere.


Neil Markey wrote:

I usually help the party diplomacy by waiting in the other room.

gnome, with -7 diplomacy...

who did you launch out of a catauplt?

-1 for charisma
-4 for wasting oracle...?
??

The Exchange

Leech-covered Bloatmage?

Shadow Lodge

Neil Markey wrote:

I usually help the party diplomacy by waiting in the other room.

gnome, with -7 diplomacy...

HOW? -7? Just.. HOW

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Neil Markey wrote:

I usually help the party diplomacy by waiting in the other room.

gnome, with -7 diplomacy...

who did you launch out of a catauplt?

-1 for charisma
-4 for wasting oracle...?
??

Clear ear. Love that +2 perception.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

I like folks to at least tell me what they are trying to do to aid. I get that not all people like to interact socially in that fashion. So merely saying, "I wanna say something witty that will make the guy laugh and maybe bring his guard down a bit."

Perfectly acceptable. You are telling me what you are trying to do, and what your goal is.

Sometimes, though, when we have a time crunch situation, going around the table and getting every person who's aiding's statement can be a place where you can cut a corner and save some time. I've done that as well too. Just let them roll.

This! SO very much this. During From Under Ice I described Kahel gathering power (a noisy and very visible thing), which then condenses into a kinetic blade. This I then slammed into a nearby boulder, splitting the rock in half. (rolled max damage and crit hit). This was my Aid Another for an intimidation check. It was dramatic, and legitimately something which could intimidate a nord. I mean, a 20 foot radius display of air and lightning being gathered, condensed into a blade, then slammed into a rock followed by "That could be your head. I suggest you back down and reconsider your actions" is very thematic for intimidating someone.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Rosc wrote:
Pat Lowinger wrote:
Or maybe...again just maybe, some players look at utilizing Archetypes which give them more class skills and skill points, such as the Tactician or Lore Warden.
Some very nice thoughs there. I've had many of the same. In fact, I'd almost prefer Lore Warden to be the baseline. And while I acknowledge that Charisma is the de facto dump stat, I do wish it had more universal appeal. Like how Dex gives initiative, or Wis for will saves.

Well, Lore Warden only barely helps, since it only gives extra skill points for knowledge, not general purposes.

And it makes you a low armor manuever based fighter, which isn't really what I want for a baseline.

Those 2 skills can be spent on knowledges. And in my experience, monster identificatoon knowledges tend to rank just below Diplomacy and Perception in their range of utility and necessity. But yes, the other aspects may not be great for everyone, especially with the Armor Mastery abilities being a thing.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
what exactly is "the meta" i keep hearing this in gaming and its gotten like special snowflake where people just pile it everywhere.

The Metagame relates to particular choices within a game, usually a competitive one, that people commonly consider more optimal. Or, used more loosely, choices that are considered very popular.

For example, the Pathfinder Society Metagame encourages you to have 12 to 14 Con, keep your Cloak of Resistance up to date, and in est in a Cure Light Wand as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, the "Metagame" at my local store leans towards skill monkeys, due on no small part to players like Hmm and Bretl showing off their awesome characters (often Bards or Bardlike in nature) and also helping a lot of our new blood with character creation. I also encourage people to play "problem solvers" in the rare occasions that I help someone new build their first character.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to encourage player engagement with the game. So, I'll allow the player to roll a risk free aid to diplomacy as long as he tells me what his character is doing to aid the diplomacy and as long as what he is doing is vaguely rational (doesn't have to be brilliant, just rationale).

Not necessarily realistic (lots of people talking probably hurts) but seems more enjoyable to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pat Lowinger wrote:
But maybe...just maybe if penalties were assigned to aid another checks, some players would be less inclined to dump stats like Wisdom or Charisma and be inclined to take traits which give them access to bonuses to Diplomacy or other non-class skills- often making them a class-skill.

Ideally, people should want to make well-rounded characters, but trying to put up certain fences to "encourage" that isn't going to be very successful. Implementing a penalty on aid another or something similar is only going to result in people sitting out participating in non-combat encounters with no changes in the way they build their characters.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have worked long and hard to get some players out of their phones and to at least pay attention to the game during the "talky parts" - part of the way I do this is to let them maybe influence the out-come by rolling an "aid another" (or at least to let them think they made the difference), During a "Gather Information" check - "You Aided? Hay Diplomancer, the Barbarian asked if you checked with the Bar-tender of the dockside bar... And when you checked there he told you..." -

Now I get to try to convince the next batch of players that I'm not going to impose a penility to their results - just because they were trying to play the game too. After all, "that's what the last judge did".

After all - "I'm only here for the fights" is a common enough attitude even when I'm granting a measly +2 bonus on a skill check that the Diplomancer often beats by 10 or 12 anyway... And it's totally worth it when the 12 year old running a barbarian get's to brag to her big brother that he "couldn't have done it without my telling you to check with the Bartender!"

Hay, as long as we are penalizing Diplomacy for failed "aid another" checks - how about penalizing Combat rolls too? When the Diplomancer fails to boost the Attack roll with an "aid another" check in combat, shouldn't he give his ally a "-1" to hit or something?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just adding a "me too" those who are opposed to the idea of penalties for failure on aid another checks. Besides all the reasons listed above, I'll add one more big one that I don't think has been mentioned yet.

It might be a perfectly fine house rule for your home campaign, but it's a mechanical change to the rules. You're not allowed to do that in PFS. Period.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As the GM, you're always in a position where you can limit how many people can aid or whether or not aiding is something that can reasonably work in a given situation. That's literally in the Guide to the Roleplaying Guild. You should have a reason better than, "Because I'm the GM."

In the case of Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate, I usually tell my players that, "After a certain point, your voices sort of just meld together as you overwhelm the NPC with numbers." Typically, my magic number is 3 — the person attempting the primary check, plus up to two players who can assist. At best, 3/4 of the players can contribute to the check. At worst, 1/2. Its not a terrible ratio. But to outright implement rules that are not written is not cool in PFS.

One question that no one has asked you yet is why. Why do you feel that the PC's ability to assist one another needs to be limited? I am having trouble interpreting your intent in any way other than, "I want to increase their chances of failing my check."


Allowing unlimited Aiding gives a huge boost to seven player tables and the DCs should be higher than a four player game. But I rarely see that in the modules.

Dark Archive

I think that while a penalty is acceptable at times, aid another is not one of those times. That said, it is perfectly acceptable to have a situational modifier because of how someone aided. Especially interesting or unusual methods of aiding. For example (not that it was probably done) a kineticist using Gather Power as part of an aid other intimidation check.

Other times it may be appropriate to have some other result beyond the +0/+2 from aid other. For example if the scenario gives specific DCs for different social tactics, one of which was inadvertently done by the not-so-bright PC who just botched their aid other check...

Ironically the PC who botched his aid another check and stayed in-character with blurting out the truth (instead of helping the diplomatic guy try bluffing) actually made the task far easier, to the point where the overall poor resulting diplo skill check actually worked.

But as others have mentioned, in PFS the GM can't generally speaking add mechanics to a scenario that weren't there before. So no automatic penalty because someone failed by more then 5 to aid another.


Fromper wrote:


It might be a perfectly fine house rule for your home campaign, but it's a mechanical change to the rules. You're not allowed to do that in PFS. Period.

Thats right...

Fail- If you fail the check by 4 or less, the character’s attitude toward you is unchanged. If you fail by 5 or more, the character’s attitude toward you is decreased by one step.

If you fail the aid another check by 5 anything less than dropping the targets attitude a full step down, (thus probably ensuring that they cannot be moved within the range required by the scenario) is thus against the rules and unacceptable. you MUST play this way or you're cheating!

No more softballing with these -2 penalties. Give them the full attitude drop because that's what the rules say! Actually, drop the full attitiude AND give them the -2 miscellaneous circumstance penalty from page 403...

This is sarcasm of course, but be careful what you wish for when you insist that people play by the rules: because english and the pathfinder rule set are certainly vague enough that the rules can be word WORSE for your players.

With that said, it's an unusual way of doing it and a bit of a curve ball if players aren't used to doing it that way, something you try to avoid a bit with groups changing their dm


Alexander Augunas wrote:
"I want to increase their chances of failing my check."

I can think of a few reasons.

1) lots of people talking at you is, realistically, annoying, not helpful

2) Someone with a +5 diplomacy should be more useful than someone with a -2 in, even in a group with a +8 diplomacy. It encourages skills somewhere in between nose picker and diplomancer

3) Lots of players trying to get in on the face's spotlight time with die rolling get annoying.

Scarab Sages

Huh, this thread gives me a further question.

Human racial trait option from ARG:

Quote:

Silver Tongued: Human are often adept at subtle manipulation and putting even sworn foes at ease. Humans with this trait gain a +2 bonus on Diplomacy and Bluff checks. In addition, when they use Diplomacy to shift a creature's attitude, they can shift up to three steps up rather than just two. This racial trait replaces skilled.

Does this apply when the human in question is merely aiding another's diplomacy check?

They are "using diplomacy" to shift the creature's attitude, right?

But to the OP, yeah, I've seen this sort of PFS aid-another stuff. It's the players that don't want to role-play, they are just playing a board game. Same group as the paladins that do whatever, then justify their code as something that is remedied by atonement, not a change in behavior. I call them metagamers, though that's probably a more general term. Not a fan of this sort of player.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:


But to the OP, yeah, I've seen this sort of PFS aid-another stuff. It's the players that don't want to role-play, they are just playing a board game.

keep in mind that you don't know WHY someone is just tossing their +2 in there. It could be disinterest, or they could be trying to not be rude and interrupt the actual role playing going on but still want to contribute to the groups success.

1 to 50 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Ending the Meta of 'Aiding-Another' All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.