Aiding during combat

Hi everyone,

The Aid action is subject to a lot of GM adjudication and as such table variation. As I play a lot of PFS, I ended up not using it at all outside situations where the rules enforce it (Inspire Competence and One For All). But it shouldn't be the case.
So, I wanted to gather the wisdom of the crowd on when you would allow to Aid and when you wouldn't. I focus on combat as it's the moment when you don't want to mess up with your actions and plan accordingly.

Would you allow to:

1) Aid a melee attack roll with a melee attack roll?
2) Aid a ranged attack roll with a melee attack roll?
3) Aid an attack roll with a ranged attack roll?
4) Aid to Demoralize with Intimidation (double Demoralize)? Would you apply a -4 to the Aid check if the character doesn't speak the language?
5) Aid to Demoralize with Deception ("This guy eats dragons for breakfast!")?
6) Aid to Demoralize with Diplomacy (good cop bad cop)?
7) Aid to Scare to Death with Intimidation? And if both characters have the feat?
8) Aid to Disturbing Knowledge with Occultism? And if both characters have the feat?
9) Aid to Battle Medicine with Medicine? And if both characters have the feat?
10) Aid to Legendary Negotiation with Diplomacy? And if both characters have the feat?
11) Aid to Bon Mot with Diplomacy? And if both characters have the feat?
12) Aid to Grapple/Disarm/Trip/Shove with Athletics? And if the monster is 2 size larger than the character and they don't have Titan Wrestler?
13) Aid to Feint with Deception? Anything else?
14) Aid to Stealth with Deception (diversion)?
15) Aid to Recall Knowledge using the same skill? Using another appropriate skill?
16) Aid to Administer First Aid with Medicine?
17) Aid to Treat Poison with Medicine?
18) Aid to Thievery to disable a trap? And if the character doesn't have the proper skill proficiency?
19) Aid to any skill to fight a Haunt using the same skill? Using another skill that can be used to fight the Haunt? And if the character doesn't have the proper skill proficiency?
20) If you find a case I've forgotten, don't hesitate to bring it in.

That's quite the list! I realize the question is an enormous one.
Thanks for your answers!

I generally consider aid ok as it's trading one action and one reaction for a bonus.

To make thing easier, the character has to roll the same skill that the ally wants to use, and, that's it.

For attacks purposes:

Attackers won't probably use it because their reactions are precious, while casters may consider doing so.

Being just expert in combat skills would result in +1/+2 circ bonus. Double the guidance spell, but requiring a reaction too. And they'd need a ranged weapon equipped ( so hands occupied).

I consider this pretty ok.

For skill check purposes:

It's the same.
Skill used is the same used for the aid check.

Sometimes will happen that two characters within the same party will get legendary in the same skill, resulting in +4 bonus, but it would be rare.

Be worst that can happen in my opinion is spellcasters getting swashbuckler/bard dedication to exploit it with one for all or inspiring competence.

Fortunately it's not a situation I have to handle, but if I were to I am not sure whether I'd be fine with it or not.

Didn't try yet.

I'm pretty open to any use of Aid. It's a nice one action ability that makes someone feel useful. It doesn't get used too often in my campaigns as movement is constant and takes up a lot of actions in battle. But it can be a good single action for a caster or ranged striker looking for something to do.

I definitely allow aid for skill checks and the like.

As long as the player comes up with a reasonably appropriate use of Aid, I allow it.

Yes to all.

I think you could use Deception to aid a lot of contested skill checks.

I'd also allow Deception to Aid any attack, and Athletics to aid any melee attack. You'd have to describe how. Normally its just a matter of timing a feint or a shove.

I can't think of any others I'd allow for attacks. I'm conscious of the need not to be too loose, nor overshadow Inspire Competence or One for All.

I wait for more responses, but from reading you it looks like you are quite open to Aid. It's true that there's a cost so it's not like if it was breaking the game.

Inspire Competence and One For All have the added advantage of using always Performance and Diplomacy and to be usable at range whatever the check. So you'd need to be really loose to overshadow them.

Describing is tricky because it can be exploited ( reason why I'd always prefer to use the allow just same skill ).

Mostly to prevent getting the best result ever regardless the situation, or make some skills more useful than another for the aid purpose.

Making it always a +4 would lessen the trade, the need to get similar skills at higher levels, making more skills way more powerful than others and so on. I don't feel at ease with giving bonuses for free.

As for jack of all trades options:

Inspire competence is balanced as a bard toolset, as it is a composition.
Using it would mean not using other composition, so it's a huge trade.

Same goes with the swashbuckler.
Using one for all would mean not only forgo their reaction ( which si core for every melee character ), but also increasing their DC to get panache by 5, making it very hard. And given that a swashbuckler has a standard routine, not hitting panache would ruin it.

So, they are both balanced around the classes meant to use them, but way too good on other classes, because they have no trade at all:

- I don't get panache? Who Cares.
- I Expend My reaction? I don't use it most of the times.
- I can only cast 1 composition per round? No problem, I am not a bard.

I feel pretty uncomfortable making many things "depends the dm" or "describe what you do" on a board game.

I don't think it's meant to be only same skill. As long as what the player says they're trying to do makes sense I say let them have it. Have someone grappled and want to throw them in the path of a sword? Sure, why not, probably has the Attack trait though. Know you're against a spellcaster that uses a lot of mental effects? Go ahead, make a Diplomacy roll or something to help with a save.

It is not meant to be always the same skill, but rather it end up to the DM to whether to allow the aid action as well as deciding what skill is the character going to use.

What I'd want to avoid is using deception ( a random skill ), the skill i leveled up to legendary, to provide aid to almost any check.

Want to attack the enemy? I distract them
Want to hide? I help providing distraction
Want to scare? I help diverging their attention on me, making the intimidate even more scarier.
Want to acrobatics? I distract them

And so on ( and as mentioned before, either one for all and inspire competence are objectively unbalanced if the character that uses them doesn't respectively work on compositions or gaining panache. But this is some extra that can be discussed within the group ).

Subsidiary question: Did you ever change the DC 20 of Aid? For better or for worse?

I am very permissive as a GM with aiding. I want my players working together as much as possible and standing around making a third attack just because “there is nothing better to do” as little as possible.

To that end, for very easy tasks at lower levels, I will sometimes drop the DC for things like climbing, or balancing or for social skill challenges to aid. At higher levels, I’d rather my party give themselves circumstance bonuses through creative skill use to aid one another than arbitrarily assign circumstance bonuses as a GM not tied to skill checks. Even a plus four circumstance bonus for a creative idea in a challenging situation, tied to a roll is not a big deal to me, if the product is encouraging players to work together

Having that DC20 for everything, right from the start can tend to write the idea of assisting each other out of the head of new players at lower levels in my experience, so they don’t even think about it when they are mid level or higher.

Subsidiary question: Did you ever change the DC 20 of Aid? For better or for worse?

I have, using the Adjusting DCs table when I think it's relevant. It got some looks until I explained my thoughts then they just kinda rolled with it. It definitely can make crits more rare, until you get high enough level that even a 30 is basically auto critical, and it helped a bit at lower levels.

It is not meant to be always the same skill, but rather it end up to the DM to whether to allow the aid action as well as deciding what skill is the character going to use.

What I'd want to avoid is using deception ( a random skill ), the skill i leveled up to legendary, to provide aid to almost any check.

Want to attack the enemy? I distract them
Want to hide? I help providing distraction
Want to scare? I help diverging their attention on me, making the intimidate even more scarier.
Want to acrobatics? I distract them

And so on ( and as mentioned before, either one for all and inspire competence are objectively unbalanced if the character that uses them doesn't respectively work on compositions or gaining panache. But this is some extra that can be discussed within the group ).

Deception isn't a random skill. It makes sense for a moderate number of contested skill checks but not all. It doesn't have that many uses, as Deception to Feint is just not required outside of the Swashbuckler that has to use it (who is rare). There are much easier ways of gaining flatfooted that don't fail. So who uses it? Illusionists and for roleplaying and that is about it.

Its up to you as to how creative you ask your players to be. Allowing a distraction to aid intimidation is probably something I would not do. But maybe there are other kinds of deception.

Subsidiary question: Did you ever change the DC 20 of Aid? For better or for worse?

No. Aid has not come up enough that I had any reason to. DCs are set so high for skills where Aid is used that even with Aid you're looking at a 40% failure rate, maybe slightly less.

My players only Aid against a high AC opponent usually at lower level when they don't have enough spell slots to continue to land a debuff or do damage. They also aid with a difficult trap disarm or lock or something. Then you're failure rate is high enough that even with aid it doesn't trivialize the roll.

HumbleGamer wrote:

It is not meant to be always the same skill, but rather it end up to the DM to whether to allow the aid action as well as deciding what skill is the character going to use.

What I'd want to avoid is using deception ( a random skill ), the skill i leveled up to legendary, to provide aid to almost any check.

Want to attack the enemy? I distract them
Want to hide? I help providing distraction
Want to scare? I help diverging their attention on me, making the intimidate even more scarier.
Want to acrobatics? I distract them

And so on ( and as mentioned before, either one for all and inspire competence are objectively unbalanced if the character that uses them doesn't respectively work on compositions or gaining panache. But this is some extra that can be discussed within the group ).

Deception isn't a random skill. It makes sense for a moderate number of contested skill checks but not all. It doesn't have that many uses, as Deception to Feint is just not required outside of the Swashbuckler that has to use it (who is rare). There are much easier ways of gaining flatfooted that don't fail. So who uses it? Illusionists and for roleplaying and that is about it.

Its up to you as to how creative you ask your players to be. Allowing a distraction to aid intimidation is probably something I would not do. But maybe there are other kinds of deception.

To begin with, deception is a random skill as any other.

The intent was to show how to exploit the system if the DM were too permessive or the player too demanding.

Plus, there's nothing about being creative in saying "I try to distract them".
But there's also nothing creative in trying to justify using a legendary skill rather than one you are trained in.

It's just trying to get the DM allowing you to benefit from the highest bonus you have.

Ps: you not allowing deception to increase an intimidate check is just a choice of yours as DM. The book neither provide examples nor say anything about what a DM can do or not ( the DM chooses if it's ok to aid. The DM decides what skill the player is going to use).

So, the player experience may be different from table to table ( but wasn't my intent to say otherwise).

To begin with, deception is a random skill as any other.

? I explained myself just fine.

The intent was to show how to exploit the system if the DM were too permessive or the player too demanding.

Of course that is a problem.

Plus, there's nothing about being creative in saying "I try to distract them".

So demand a better and relevant description each time. These are your words not mine.

But there's also nothing creative in trying to justify using a legendary skill rather than one you are trained in.

It's just trying to get the DM allowing you to benefit from the highest bonus you have.

On the contrary it is about finding reasonable uses for each skill in the game. There is very little reason to take the deception skill outside of its roleplaying value at the moment. I'm not suggesting you can use acrobatics, stealth, medicine, thievery or lore like this. Merely that deception has a reasonable rationale why it fits. So I typically allow it. Perfectly happen if another GM says no, just do a feint instead. The fact that feint exists as a deception action says that I'm not too far out of bounds here.

Given something specific and very carefully thought out, I would be open to some one off Aid options. Generally I feel the GM should cooperate with creative play from the PCs, but obviously reasonable limits. Repetition is not creative.

Ps: you not allowing deception to increase an intimidate check is just a choice of yours as DM. The book neither provide examples nor say...

That was the question asked in the start of this thread. Provide examples. So ?!?

OK. Not trying to quote/unquote the entire list. Let's be sane about this.

Would you allow to:

1) Aid a melee attack roll with a melee attack roll?
Yes. That is pretty much how Aid works.

2) Aid a ranged attack roll with a melee attack roll?
Probably.

3) Aid an attack roll with a ranged attack roll?
Probably.

4) Aid to Demoralize with Intimidation (double Demoralize)?
Yes.
Would you apply a -4 to the Aid check if the character doesn't speak the language?
Also yes. Meaning the Aid roll also gets the -4 penalty in addition to the actual Demoralize check.

5) Aid to Demoralize with Deception ("This guy eats dragons for breakfast!")?
Yes.

6) Aid to Demoralize with Diplomacy (good cop bad cop)?
Yes.

7) Aid to Scare to Death with Intimidation? And if both characters have the feat?
Yes. Aiding character doesn't need the feat. I think of it like secondary casters in a Ritual - they only need to roll the check, there are no proficiency or level minimums. Same for the next several similar questions.

8) Aid to Disturbing Knowledge with Occultism? And if both characters have the feat?
Yes.

9) Aid to Battle Medicine with Medicine? And if both characters have the feat?
Yes.

10) Aid to Legendary Negotiation with Diplomacy? And if both characters have the feat?
Yes.

11) Aid to Bon Mot with Diplomacy? And if both characters have the feat?
Yes.

12) Aid to Grapple/Disarm/Trip/Shove with Athletics? And if the monster is 2 size larger than the character and they don't have Titan Wrestler?
Technically yes - Aid isn't the problem here. However, Aid won't let you overcome the requirements of the primary check. So if the character couldn't Grapple/Disarm/Trip/Shove on their own, no amount of Aid is going to change that.

13) Aid to Feint with Deception? Anything else?
Yes. Probably any of the other verbal skills such as Intimidation, Performance, or Diplomacy. Perhaps Crafting too if they had prepared some widget beforehand.

14) Aid to Stealth with Deception (diversion)?
Isn't there literally a Create a Diversion skill action?

15) Aid to Recall Knowledge using the same skill?
Yes.
Using another appropriate skill?
Maybe.

16) Aid to Administer First Aid with Medicine?
Yes.

17) Aid to Treat Poison with Medicine?
Yes.

18) Aid to Thievery to disable a trap? And if the character doesn't have the proper skill proficiency?
Yes.

19) Aid to any skill to fight a Haunt using the same skill? Using another skill that can be used to fight the Haunt? And if the character doesn't have the proper skill...
The skill would need to be something that they could fight the haunt with, but they would not have any proficiency requirements.

HumbleGamer wrote:

But there's also nothing creative in trying to justify using a legendary skill rather than one you are trained in.

It's just trying to get the DM allowing you to benefit from the highest bonus you have.

On the contrary it is about finding reasonable uses for each skill in the game. There is very little reason to take the deception skill outside of its roleplaying value at the moment. I'm not suggesting you can use acrobatics, stealth, medicine, thievery or lore like this. Merely that deception has a reasonable rationale why it fits. So I typically allow it. Perfectly happen if another GM says no, just do a feint instead. The fact that feint exists as a deception action says that I'm not too far out of bounds here.

Given something specific and very carefully thought out, I would be open to some one off Aid options. Generally I feel the GM should cooperate with creative play from the PCs, but obviously reasonable limits. Repetition is not creative.

Are you being serious?

What matters is just the DM final word, about allowing it or not.

Creativity literally has no place here ( but if you feel amused by players describing what they do to get what they want, and you are ok with that, I can only say good for you), and you'll end up not finding a balanced use for each skill in the game when it comes down to aid.

I have to say that It felt odd at first reading superbidi opening post about pfs DM not allowing aid during combat, although I imagine that being strictly tied to raw could lead to similar situations, but now I think I an see how, in terms of balance, not allowing them wins over allowingthem, because how going with infinite different versions ( any DM could do it in their own way) would have an impact on a tactical game.

The GMG has a short guideline to help with Aid by the way:

It's up to you whether someone's preparation is enough to let them Aid an ally. The preparation should be specific to the task at hand. Helping someone hold a lockpick steady might be enough preparation to Aid an attempt to Pick a Lock, but just saying you're going to “encourage” them likely wouldn't. Second, the character who is attempting to Aid needs to be in a proper position to help, and able to convey any necessary information. Helping a character Climb a wall is pretty tough if the character a PC wishes to Aid is nowhere near them. Similarly, a character usually needs to be next to their ally or a foe to Aid the ally in attacking the foe. You'll also need to determine how long the preparation takes. Typically, a single action is sufficient to help with a task that's completed in a single round, but to help someone perform a long-term task, like research, the character has to help until the task is finished.

Aid - GMG

Basically, it needs to make sense and you need to be appropriately positioned. Otherwise, go nuts.

Repetition is not creative.

I react to that: What if it becomes a common occurrence?

Either a character aiding others always using the same skill (with a little bit of adaptation to the situation), or even using companions to Aid or Aiding companions (my Oracle has a Rat with Speech and Intimidation my Oracle can Aid easily, Eidolons are also classical helpers).

I have to say that It felt odd at first reading superbidi opening post about pfs DM not allowing aid during combat

It's not exactly that. Because I change DM all the time in PFS, I avoid bringing rules suffering from table variations. First because I don't know what I can expect, and second because it may generate a discussion around the table, which can be detrimental to a PFS game where time constraints are important (it's hard to report the end of a game, so in general we are playing until the end of the adventure and I don't like much going to bed at 2AM because a rule discussion took 1 hour).

Creativity literally has no place here ( but if you feel amused by players describing what they do to get what they want, and you are ok with that, I can only say good for you), and you'll end up not finding a balanced use for each skill in the game when it comes down to aid.

That's an interesting point of view. I think we can read the rules in both ways: Either Aid is granted as long as the player comes up with a reasonable explanation or Aid is forbidden unless the player has a good reason.

It's not exactly that. Because I change DM all the time in PFS, I avoid bringing rules suffering from table variations. First because I don't know what I can expect, and second because it may generate a discussion around the table, which can be detrimental to a PFS game where time constraints are important (it's hard to report the end of a game, so in general we are playing until the end of the adventure and I don't like much going to bed at 2AM because a rule discussion took 1 hour).

I understand.

That's an interesting point of view. I think we can read the rules in both ways: Either Aid is granted as long as the player comes up with a reasonable explanation or Aid is forbidden unless the player has a good reason.

Honestly, to me, it feels a little more complicated than that.

Rules ( and provided examples ) in this specific case ( aid ) are imo a total mess. Vague and not helpful at all.

What concerns me the most is that in this 2e even a +1/-1 matters a lot, and to think that there may be variation depends the table on something involving a so huge bonus is demoralizing.

Between not allowing it and allowing it is a huge difference in terms of bonuses, and there's also a huge difference between a character using the same skill over and over and a character alternating trained skill with expert/master/Legendary ones ( knowing that expert and trained work the same when it comes down to the aid action ).

Plus there's the issue in terms of balance about inspire competence and one for all, when used outside their classes.

I think I'd rather go with the former one you proposed, as I see aid as a part of the game, but having to deal with players expectations and have to decide what skill they should be using all the time it's something I don't really enjoy on a tactical rgp/board game.

What concerns me the most is that in this 2e even a +1/-1 matters a lot, and to think that there may be variation depends the table on something involving a so huge bonus is demoralizing.

Between not allowing it and allowing it is a huge difference in terms of bonuses, and there's also a huge difference between a character using the same skill over and over and a character alternating trained skill with expert/master/Legendary ones ( knowing that expert and trained work the same when it comes down to the aid action ).

A few things about that:

I fully agree that a +3/+4 bonus is massive. I think it should be compared to Demoralize, Flank and Inspire Courage as these actions are very close: A straight bonus/penalty for one action.

Demoralize cons:
- Penalty is only -1
- Limited use
- Some enemies are immune
- The DC scales with the enemy level

Demoralize pros:
- An excellent critical success (at level 7+ you can grab Terrified Retreat so you actually CCed an enemy for 2 rounds)
- Applies to every checks against the enemy and not just one check
- Good range

Inspire Courage cons:
- Class feature or mid level class feat
- Bonus is +1

Inspire Courage pros:
- No check
- Affects everyone
- Excellent range
- Lasts a round

Flank cons:
- Only affects you and one ally

Flank pros:
- No check
- Nice bonus
- Affects all attacks

Aid cons:
- Many types of Aid are at melee range
- Eats your Reaction on top of your action
- Only one check is modified
- Needs a "story" (not much of a con but you still can't do everything with any skill)
- Can be useless if your ally changes their mind

Aid pros:
- Nearly fixed DC of 30 (20 is not even half of a success), so an auto success at very high level
- High bonus of +3/+4
- Circumstance bonus are quite rare
- Available to everyone

When you compare all these actions, I don't find Aid to be overpowered. It's more focused which encourages synergies. But it's also more costly (at high level, your reaction is really worth it's pound of flesh, especially for martials).
I don't know if a liberal use of Aid would imbalance the game. In my opinion there are good contenders for your third action and Aid is not a no-brainer.

I see your comparison, but I think that when you consider flanking you should also consider activities that give the enemy the flat footed condition.

For example, a critical hit from a hammer ( if the target has the weapon critical spec), would make the target flat footed to all attacks regardless the allies position.

One thing that I am pretty sure of, is that aid would give value to ranged and spellcasters character, reason why I wouldn't remove it to the game.

I agree demoralize is quite performing because the benefits you mentioned ( a spellcasters using demoralize + synesthesia is in my opinion more valuable than aid + synesthesia), but on some situations ( magus ready to true strike + spell strike or a 2h fighter using power attack with true strike) aid can be worth it, especially against a boss.

But there are several variables ( so I am not saying aid would always be better, but rather that I'd consider it to deliver a final blow or a powerful spell strike rather than demoralize)

Anyway, to me it's also wrong the approach of "from lvl 7 aid will always give +3 and from lvl 15 will always give +4".

Making assumptions the bonus would always be that one, I mean.

For example, would you consider using aid not knowing what check the DM would let you roll?

Player: I use aid to help the fighter's strike to hit the enemy by trying to get the enemy attention.
DM: ok
*Fighter's turn*
DM: ok, roll me an attack
Player: but I was expecting to roll deception. With a -1 on the circ bonus I wouldn't have bothered using my aid action.

would you consider using aid not knowing what check the DM would let you roll?

Would you make any combat action not knowing what check the GM would let you roll?

Making assumptions the bonus would always be that one, I mean.

If the GM isn't crystal clear about Aid I wouldn't use Aid at all. By crystal clear, I mean skill involved, DC, bonus. Combat is not the moment to have a discussion with the GM about the fairness of their DC and skills. Also, my character is supposed to be aware of the skill they use and have a general idea of the difficulty.

HumbleGamer wrote:

would you consider using aid not knowing what check the DM would let you roll?

Would you make any combat action not knowing what check the GM would let you roll?

"- I rage and attack the monster!
- Ok, roll Arcana."

Now that would be kinda ridiculous.

I merely meant to say, for example, rolling an attack check rather than deception to fake an attack.

If the GM isn't crystal clear about Aid I wouldn't use Aid at all. By crystal clear, I mean skill involved, DC, bonus. Combat is not the moment to have a discussion with the GM about the fairness of their DC and skills. Also, my character is supposed to be aware of the skill they use and have a general idea of the difficulty.

Exactly.

But this would, eventually, lead to a discussion in terms of the skill involved ( Although it probably won't if you change a DM frequently, as a PFS player may do ). Maybe not during the combat ( though this one is pretty frequent ), but outside of it.

It could lead to the player choosing what skill to increse ( knowing the DM ) in order to get an overall better aid, in terms of versatility.

Or it could make the player not so eager to continue using the aid action ( this could also mean not investing in a skill that the player meant to use for every single combat check ).

I'd be pretty open to most of the Aid uses in the OP.

The big one where I'd put a footnote is Thievery to disable traps. I'd rule that if you were going to assist in that, you're probably also within the blast zone if the check critically fails and the trap triggers. (Although there might be ways of Aiding that make sense to do at a safe enough distance. Especially when you start looking at the telepathic psychic stuff.)

Subsidiary question: Did you ever change the DC 20 of Aid? For better or for worse?

I'd consider lowering the DC if the DC of the original check is also lower than 20. That'd mostly happen at low levels. It'd help from burning people on the idea of Aiding because it's so hard at level 1.

I wouldn't raise it, because I think the bonus from (frequent) critting on Aid is intended. Of course that becomes more relevant at higher level.

The whole idea of characters frequently spending some actions to boost each other with Aid, rather than using all their actions for themselves - that sounds okay to me.

I'm also not going to require constantly new ideas on how to Aid, if the task is the same. If a way of helping helped in the past, it might work this time too. Is that un-creative of the aiding player? Or is it actually the GM who could be more creative, by presenting different situations, rather than the same checks over and over? (I think we should just relax and not worry that Aid is powerful. Skill DCs seem to go up a bit too much by level, maybe lots of Aid was calculated in to balance that.)a

Aid
a) is good for team work and the spirit of the game.
b) is a nice prompt for the character to describe their action
c) is a useful default reaction for everyone.

The problem with Aid is that:
d) it is very little value for low levels.
e) it is overpowered at high levels. Which does crowd out other options.
f) it is a time waster. Rolls to help other rolls slows the game down. We want less of them not more of them.

It is a bit open and does require some GM interpretation. But I don't see that as an overall positive or negative aspect.

Paizo suggest the GM might like to alter the DC (which could fix d and e). Personally I find that annoying - Paizo really should have provided better guidance here. I think maybe the easy level based standard DC might make sense.

I'll probably house rule it myself to speed it up..

Hi everyone,

The Aid action is subject to a lot of GM adjudication and as such table variation. As I play a lot of PFS, I ended up not using it at all outside situations where the rules enforce it (Inspire Competence and One For All). But it shouldn't be the case.
So, I wanted to gather the wisdom of the crowd on when you would allow to Aid and when you wouldn't. I focus on combat as it's the moment when you don't want to mess up with your actions and plan accordingly.

Would you allow to:

1) Aid a melee attack roll with a melee attack roll?
2) Aid a ranged attack roll with a melee attack roll?
3) Aid an attack roll with a ranged attack roll?
4) Aid to Demoralize with Intimidation (double Demoralize)? Would you apply a -4 to the Aid check if the character doesn't speak the language?
5) Aid to Demoralize with Deception ("This guy eats dragons for breakfast!")?
6) Aid to Demoralize with Diplomacy (good cop bad cop)?
7) Aid to Scare to Death with Intimidation? And if both characters have the feat?
8) Aid to Disturbing Knowledge with Occultism? And if both characters have the feat?
9) Aid to Battle Medicine with Medicine? And if both characters have the feat?
10) Aid to Legendary Negotiation with Diplomacy? And if both characters have the feat?
11) Aid to Bon Mot with Diplomacy? And if both characters have the feat?
12) Aid to Grapple/Disarm/Trip/Shove with Athletics? And if the monster is 2 size larger than the character and they don't have Titan Wrestler?
13) Aid to Feint with Deception? Anything else?
14) Aid to Stealth with Deception (diversion)?
15) Aid to Recall Knowledge using the same skill? Using another appropriate skill?
16) Aid to Administer First Aid with Medicine?
17) Aid to Treat Poison with Medicine?
18) Aid to Thievery to disable a trap? And if the character doesn't have the proper skill proficiency?
19) Aid to any skill to fight a Haunt using the same skill? Using another skill that can be used to fight the Haunt? And if the character doesn't have the proper skill...

1)Yes

I also tend to give an extra bonus if they do something very cool or appropriate. I do not change the DC20 for narrative purposes, i think it is pretty cool that the team becomes increasingly better at it by passing more time toghether and learning each other's styles (leveling up toghether)

Hi everyone,

The Aid action is subject to a lot of GM adjudication and as such table variation. As I play a lot of PFS, I ended up not using it at all outside situations where the rules enforce it (Inspire Competence and One For All). But it shouldn't be the case.
So, I wanted to gather the wisdom of the crowd on when you would allow to Aid and when you wouldn't. I focus on combat as it's the moment when you don't want to mess up with your actions and plan accordingly.

Would you allow to:

1) Aid a melee attack roll with a melee attack roll? Yes but with map a bad idea.
2) Aid a ranged attack roll with a melee attack roll? See 1.
3) Aid an attack roll with a ranged attack roll? See 1.
4) Aid to Demoralize with Intimidation (double Demoralize)? Yes. Would you apply a -4 to the Aid check if the character doesn't speak the language? Yes
5) Aid to Demoralize with Deception ("This guy eats dragons for breakfast!")? Yes
6) Aid to Demoralize with Diplomacy (good cop bad cop)? no but I'd allow it for Coerce.
7) Aid to Scare to Death with Intimidation? Yes And if both characters have the feat? Double yes
8) Aid to Disturbing Knowledge with Occultism? And if both characters have the feat? Yes
9) Aid to Battle Medicine with Medicine? Yes And if both characters have the feat? Yes
10) Aid to Legendary Negotiation with Diplomacy? Yes And if both characters have the feat? Yes
11) Aid to Bon Mot with Diplomacy? Yes And if both characters have the feat? Double yes
12) Aid to Grapple/Disarm/Trip/Shove with Athletics? And if the monster is 2 size larger than the character and they don't have Titan Wrestler? Yes
13) Aid to Feint with Deception? Anything else? Yes
14) Aid to Stealth with Deception (diversion)? Yes, though Create a Diversion seems more efficient.
15) Aid to Recall Knowledge using the same skill? Using another appropriate skill? Depends on my mood.
16) Aid to Administer First Aid with Medicine? Yes, though you're probably better off doing it yourself.
17) Aid to Treat Poison with Medicine? Yes, but see 16
18) Aid to Thievery to disable a trap? Yes, but see 16. And if the character doesn't have the proper skill proficiency? Depends if another skill makes sense, like crafting to aid on mechanical traps or arcana to aid on magical ones.
19) Aid to any skill to fight a Haunt using the same skill? Yes but see 16. Using another skill that can be used to fight the Haunt? sure but see 16. And if the character doesn't have the proper skill... Depends.

That's as many answers as the quote button includes so that's all you're getting from me.

Hmmm. Applying Multiple Attack Penalty to Aid checks. That is an interesting idea. I'm not sure it is much different to saying no to all martial characters. There is not normally MAP outside your turn.

Hmmm. Applying Multiple Attack Penalty to Aid checks. That is an interesting idea. I'm not sure it is much different to saying no to all martial characters. There is not normally MAP outside your turn.

Maybe it doesn't apply! But usually you can get a skill bonus that's higher than your attack roll anyway, unless you're a fighter. In which case why you wasting actions on aid, silly? Slap slap slap that dragon.

I'll throw out one more example I allow: if you cast a spell, I'll potentially let you use your spell casting tradition skill to siphon some energy to Aid an appropriate action, like someone else casting the same spell. Or using letting a Witch with Malicious Shadow use Occultism to Aid on normal attack rolls.

I'll also allow Aids on counteract checks.

Pretty sure MAP doesn't apply because the actual check is on a different turn.

Yeah it's actually one of the incentives to Aid; you can use your third action with lots of MAP to try to achieve glory on your own, or you can Aid without MAP to raise someone else. (And they then later Aid you maybe).

I guess I have just never bothered because all of my character builds have at least one skill higher than my attack bonus.