The rule still says 'might adjust for particularly hard'. It does actually say that. Overriding that rule with GM Fiat is a houserule.
This is what I am seeing as the core difference between how we understand this exact same section in the Aid rules along with why I think we cannot see eye to eye on it. I don't agree a GM deciding what is hard vs what is typical is overriding anything, That sentence tells me a GM is responsible to do exactly that decide.
Player Core wrote:
The typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks.
When I read this section I take from it the following. I will put in parens the parts that it seems to me you don't take from it that I do
A typical DC is 15 harder checks can have higher difficulty easier ones can have lower difficulty(Harder, easier, and typical is not defined, so it is entirely a GM responsibility to make a decision when the typical 15 applies to a situation or to adjust it higher or lower)
This passage tells the GM to decide as a rule when to use 15 or adjust it.
It seems to me you want Finoan to decide not the GM running the game. I wasnt trying to convince you to run it this way either, I was trying to point out a GM doing the work of deciding when something is typical harder or easier is not a house rule, it is the Aid rule itself.
Why you cant see what I am seeing - I think you are conflating this sentence with what is typical.
Player Core wrote:
The GM can add any relevant traits to your
preparatory action or to your Aid reaction depending on the
situation, or even allow you to Aid checks other than skill
checks and attack rolls.
Bolding to point out the relevant part of the sentence.
Here they have moved on from discussing DCs or what is typical. They are saying what kind of ally actions aid checks can apply to period. They are not telling us what to apply typical DC of 15 to.
So I think that is part of the difference in how we are seeing the same text.
Gotcha. They opted for "more than the minimum" and come up with a more interesting and unique approach to dragons so that we'd have more categories of better-differentiated dragons that are recognizably "Pathfinder". They probably could have done what you described, but it wouldn't really generate additional interest. Folks already have those ten available.
Then again, nothing prevents them from creating their own dragons to further distance themselves from the OGL.
Isn't that what they did with Monster Core dragons?
If you are still going to put the Attack trait on the Preparation action and increase the DC without any narrative justification for doing so, how do you still claim to be following the rule "The GM can add any relevant traits to your preparatory action or to your Aid reaction depending on the situation,"
Again you assert I have no narrative justification. MAP is a mechanic yes, but I am the GM, in my game I am responsible for narrative. When players have MAP they are doing something harder both mechanically and in narrative. That is not your call at any table but yours. It is always the GMs call at their table. If you at your table dont want MAP to have any narrative impact thats great, I will include it in narrative at my table. You made no rules argument here at all by the way and are telling me I am not making rules arguments.
Yes, I am asserting that you have no narrative justification for including MAP as an increase in the Aid DC.
And apparently your claim is that you don't need any narrative justification for it, you have GM Fiat instead.
The rule still says 'might adjust for particularly hard'. It does actually say that. Overriding that rule with GM Fiat is a houserule.
I am thinking that the core of this debate is the definitions of 'typical' and 'particular'.
This is how I am defining those terms:
Typical: The standard use cases. This is the expectation for the vast majority of use. Deviations from the typical need to be explained as such.
Particular: One use case that is different from the typical. The differences from the typical cases can and should be explained. The differences are specific to this use case and all use cases that have the same circumstances, but are not general to all use cases or all use cases in a general category.
Using Aid with an Attack Roll is a typical use.
Using Aid while on the deck of a boat in a storm is a particular use. Every Aid attempt made while on the deck of a boat in a...
Ok so we have several points of irreconcilable disagreement.
First I can see having MAP while using aid for an attack role when the GM gives the attack trait to aid as Particular not Typical (even with your definitions, I even in a previous post explained how particular MAP is for aid).
And I actually think you've made statements up till now that giving the attack trait to aid is not typical. So you might be more in agreement with me than you realize when a GM is giving the attack trait to aid.
Thank you for providing the stormy boat example as it illustrates the reason I was calling out the permanence argument you made as not an argument against. You would apply the stormy boat situation as more difficult every time it came up. You would be consistent.
If a GM says MAP while using an attack roll is also Particular just as a stormy boat situation is Particular then they should be consistent.
You can say they are not the same thing, thats ok. But another GM is still within rules to say both are Particular situations and more difficult than what is typical and be within the rules.
Second
Finoan wrote:
And apparently your claim is that you don't need any narrative justification for it, you have GM Fiat instead.
Do you get to just decide by fiat what I see as narrative or use to generate narrative? Or even that mechanics cannot ever translate to narrative explanations?
I am saying that I can translate MAP to narrative. I even do so every time I describe the results or outcome of a check to players. Or when I assess the players Aid explanation against the narrative situation in game. MAP certainly can have narrative translation when they hit or miss, with narrative descriptions of high MAP strikes hitting sounding even more amazing given how difficult they are to land. Because they actually in game are more difficult to land.
It sounds like you didn't read my last few posts responding to you at all. I'm sure you did, but this last post from you flatly ignores or pretends my arguments were not made or that I made arguments other than what I actually typed. I provided a narrative explanation yet you state your claim as if I didn't.
I have explained why MAP is particularly hard and why its not typical yet you ignored those points just flat out typing as if I didn't. And more to the point you are not an arbiter of what is particularly hard. There is no example in the book to point to for aid so you have no rules standings to be that arbiter here. I guess I was right in the beginning when I suggested maybe all the GMs out there do need to come ask you before they decide an aid roll is particularly hard.
This is for clarity on the two points I didn't address in the last post.
I want to saw too, I used the word "you" a lot in the last post and here and that can come off as aggressive, so I apologize if I have come off that way.
Finoan wrote:
But I am also pointing to written rules to say that. MAP says that it does not apply to checks made when it is not your turn. Aid says that the typical DC is 15 and adjustments can be made for particular cases. Both of those are written.
You are pointing to reaction rules. But I made the difference clear. Adjusting a DC is not applying a penalty or granting a bonus, not the multiple attack penalty or a circumstance penalty or a status penalty or even an untyped penalty. its not a penalty in game terms and so the rules on reactions and MAP are not involved at all.
Finoan wrote:
The logic that I am using is that making a permanent change to every instance of Aid based solely on game mechanics - such as increasing the DC every time the player makes the preparation action while having MAP - is a change to the typical DC, not an adjustment because of a particular usage of Aid.
I did discuss the idea of permanence. And in my last post I even pointed out how special a circumstance this is for Aid. Its not every aid check, its not even every aid check that is an attack roll.
My argument before that was on consistency. If a GM determined something is particularly hard they absolutely to be fair to all players should be consistent in applying what is particularly hard. You wouldn't want a GM to say this time having MAP was hard but for the NPC or another player its not hard. The idea of permanence is strange to claim.
If you Finoan decided something was particularly hard and that same thing came up again for another player and that second time you say oh its not hard, thats just not being consistent. A GM should be consistent and every time the harder thing happens adjust the DC accordingly.
That is an incomplete representation of what I am saying.
Yes, I am saying that MAP isn't a good enough justification for increasing the DC.
But I am also pointing to written rules to say that. MAP says that it does not apply to checks made when it is not your turn. Aid says that the typical DC is 15 and adjustments can be made for particular cases. Both of those are written.
The logic that I am using is that making a permanent change to every instance of Aid based solely on game mechanics - such as increasing the DC every time the player makes the preparation action while having MAP - is a change to the typical DC, not an adjustment because of a particular usage of Aid.
So if one side of a debate has rules as well as reasoning and the other side only has reasoning, which is RAW?
You are absolutely wrong there again saying I am not quoting the rules as written.
I am saying exactly that pg 416 Player Core and pg 27 GM Core are making my case.
Player Core 416 Aid Entry wrote:
You try to help your ally with a task. To use this reaction,
you must first prepare to help, usually by using an action
during your turn. You must explain to the GM exactly how
you’re trying to help, and they determine whether you can
Aid your ally.
When you use your Aid reaction, attempt a skill check
or attack roll of a type decided by the GM. The typical DC
is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard
or easy tasks. The GM can add any relevant traits to your
preparatory action or to your Aid reaction depending on the
situation, or even allow you to Aid checks other than skill
checks and attack rolls.
The typical DC
is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard
or easy tasks. means exactly what it says. To say, but the GM cant do so while the PC aiding has MAP for aiding attack rolls is adding rules. You are creating stipulations where the GM can't make the call about whats hard and increase the DC instead of just following exactly what it says.
and like I said you can disagree with another GM about what is particularly hard but you cant say they are not following the rules as written. The rule as I quoted it has no stipulation saying that MAP is a circumstance that is not particularly hard when you give the attack trait to aid.
Finoan wrote:
So if one side of a debate has rules as well as reasoning and the other side only has reasoning, which is RAW?
I am not adding text to the rules to make my argument, I am just doing what it says to do and determining when to adjust the DC for harder or easier. I would say that you have to add text to the existing rules make your claim RAW. You would have to stipulate a GM cannot decide what is harder under X circumstances or add rules that say what is harder.
Finoan wrote:
If you are still going to put the Attack trait on the Preparation action and increase the DC without any narrative justification for doing so, how do you still claim to be following the rule "The GM can add any relevant traits to your preparatory action or to your Aid reaction depending on the situation,"
Again you assert I have no narrative justification. MAP is a mechanic yes, but I am the GM, in my game I am responsible for narrative. When players have MAP they are doing something harder both mechanically and in narrative. That is not your call at any table but yours. It is always the GMs call at their table. If you at your table dont want MAP to have any narrative impact thats great, I will include it in narrative at my table. You made no rules argument here at all by the way and are telling me I am not making rules arguments.
The important thing is consistency, fairness, and creating a good time for your table.
Finoan wrote:
If instead you are always adding the Attack trait to the Preparation action and increasing the DC every time the Aid reaction involves an attack roll no matter what the narrative is, then that is once again a change to the rules for typical uses of Aid, not an adjustment for a particular case.
Thats another thing. Always adding the attack trait to attack roll based aid is not the same as say always adding the attack trait to any and all aid checks.
Deciding that when there is MAP the check is harder is not the same as deciding the check is always harder or even always harder when the attack trait is applied.
Its a specific circumstance, more specific than aid in general and more specific still than aiding with the attack trait applied. Its aiding with the attack trait and MAP during preparation. That is not a circumstance delineated in the rules as written and a GM is always making a decision on difficulty whether they are saying its typical or saying its harder. Neither GM is outside the rules as I have said before.
As a reminder of what I said before, the players roll during the reaction is not taking an MAP penalty so bringing up the reaction rule is not an argument against.
Meaning this here:
Bluemagetim wrote:
Its kind of simple in that one GM might say its not any harder to use aid after striking and another GM saying you know what striking over and over is harder so aid when using it in a way they think should have the attack trait also is harder.
Yes?
So you are taking one possible potential narrative description and applying it as a general rule to Aid. "If the player describes their preparation for Aid as being 'attacking the enemy repeatedly during that action of my turn in order to distract the enemy', then MAP applies to that preparation action as an increase in the Aid DC for the reaction."
So how about if the player instead decides to describe their preparation action differently? Describe it as 'planning an attack to coincide with my ally's attack so that my attack will distract the enemy'.
So why are you increasing the DC for a player because of their choice of narrative description? Especially if you don't warn them about it.
You have a few things to respond to.
Your final question strawmaned me assuming I don't warn the player. I always tell the player if their idea can be used to aid first, If I allow it I will also tell them if it is typical, harder, or easier so they can decide if they want to attempt it. I laid that out here
To optimize flow:
Bluemagetim wrote:
Finoan I wanted to clarify something from earlier about the bolded section.
You pointed out not being able to remove the bolded section of the rules.
My interpretation of RAW was inclusive of the section you bolded not excluding it. In fact I am relying very much on that bolded section to come to my conclusion that a GM can adjust the DC and must decide when an action is particularly hard.
An I have not taken the position that you wouldn't be entitled to disagree with the GM that makes that call where a pc has MAP. But both you and the GM doing so are following the rules.
And to be clear this is what I see the rules asking of a GM for adjudicating aid.
1 - Decide if the player explanation is valid for aiding
If no - tell the player that.
If Yes -
2 - Decide if the PC needs to use a skill check or an attack roll for the reaction.
3 - Decide if DC 15 is appropriate or if it should be higher or lower based on all the relevant aspects of the attempt. Tell the player if the attempt would be easier or harder.
4 - Add any traits that are relevant to the preparation and or the reaction
If a GM is doing the above then I would say they are following the rules. IMO A GM doesn't have to agree aiding an attack while having MAP is typical. They can say that is harder and still follow the rules.
The point I am making is that 3 above set to 15 or lower or higher is all within the rules. You can disagree with a GM when they say an action is harder than normal and set the DC higher and are entitled to do so, but saying its houseruling is not appropriate.
For the second question.
The GM first must tell the player if the description they provided is allowed as an aid action. I wont just allow anything, it has to be specific to what the ally is doing. Planning is not helping and I wouldn't allow it to be the preparation action. The preparation should be helping just like the example of holding the lockpick steady as the preparation in the example provided is already helping. The qualifying aid description has the player getting involved, the disqualified example has the player standing back and encouraging. Planning then is no different than encouraging as a preparation action and could have been done from any distance.
For the question you asked first I was actually meaning this one here. I know lol, we have both said a lot in this thread already.
Bluemagetim wrote:
Second -
The idea of more often than not the DC should be 15 is sort of a odd statement for the discussion. I dont mean that in a negative way but here is what I mean. If all the persons here agreed on a particular circumstance as one that is particularly hard and we all said yes thats a good reason to increase the DC wouldnt it be a good thing to always be consistent in that application? Meaning everytime that circumstance happened the GM increased the DC accordingly? Otherwise they would be playing favorites when they didnt.
I have not been saying that the DC should be adjusted when there is no special circumstance, MAP is the special circumstance.
And that is a point where two GMs can disagree but neither are houseruling. Both sides of the disagreement are within the rules.
To kind of wrap this up what it sounds like you are actually saying is that MAP isn't a good enough justification for increasing the DC. Its fine to claim that but it would be just as much a houserule as claiming it is. Claiming it ends at your table and is within rules either way.
The rules don't cover how to specifically adjudicate particularly hard from typical or easy. in fact they don't provide any examples of situations that are particularly hard.
In that respect it does actually fall under houserule territory in that anytime time a GM has to fill in where there is nothing specified it is a houserule. And if were in that territory anything at all decided as hard or easy is a houserule.
And I would disagree with even that framing as the rule in fact for aid is that a GM decide what is hard or easy and adjust the DC accordingly.
Only need to scroll up to see the responses that clearly answer each of the last few posts.
Clearly MAP is not every situation. Any player can always get the typical DC of 15 by just taking the aid action first before using other abilities with the attack trait as long as there are no other circumstances making the check harder or easier.
As a reminder of what I said before, the players roll during the reaction is not taking an MAP penalty so bringing up the reaction rule is not an argument against.
the rules themselves say and hopefully we agree a GM can and should make adjustments when warranted.
People are saying (and I agree) that making this DC level-based (AC-based included) or simple DC is NOT an 'adjustment'. It's a complete replacement. That's the root of the disagreement.
My interpretation of RAW was inclusive of the section you bolded not excluding it. In fact I am relying very much on that bolded section to come to my conclusion that a GM can adjust the DC and must decide when an action is particularly hard.
The issue arises when the GM rarely or never uses the typical 15 DC and defends that as RAW.
If the DC is typically 15, then, more often then not, it should be 15. Combined with the typical DC and the reasons (particular hard or easy tasks), the call-out that the "GM might adjust the DC" is expressing a deviation from the standard that should not be standard.
I believe some are reading "might" as "may" as in "the GM has permission to." However, the construction of the sentence suggests the reading of "might" should more translate to "it is possible that the GM would, in certain cases."
Thus, when the GM decides that the DC 15 check is too easy or permissive and always replaces it they are, in fact, deviating into house rules territory. It's fine if they do, just don't argue that it isn't house rules territory.
Two points.
First -
We are disagreeing on the cases that warrant adjustment. Thats fine.
But its not a disagreement on playing rules as written because the rules themselves say and hopefully we agree a GM can and should make adjustments when warranted.
Second -
The idea of more often than not the DC should be 15 is sort of a odd statement for the discussion. I dont mean that in a negative way but here is what I mean. If all the persons here agreed on a particular circumstance as one that is particularly hard and we all said yes thats a good reason to increase the DC wouldnt it be a good thing to always be consistent in that application? Meaning everytime that circumstance happened the GM increased the DC accordingly? Otherwise they would be playing favorites when they didnt.
I have not been saying that the DC should be adjusted when there is no special circumstance, MAP is the special circumstance.
And that is a point where two GMs can disagree but neither are houseruling. Both sides of the disagreement are within the rules.
Finoan I wanted to clarify something from earlier about the bolded section.
You pointed out not being able to remove the bolded section of the rules.
My interpretation of RAW was inclusive of the section you bolded not excluding it. In fact I am relying very much on that bolded section to come to my conclusion that a GM can adjust the DC and must decide when an action is particularly hard.
An I have not taken the position that you wouldn't be entitled to disagree with the GM that makes that call where a pc has MAP. But both you and the GM doing so are following the rules.
And to be clear this is what I see the rules asking of a GM for adjudicating aid.
1 - Decide if the player explanation is valid for aiding
If no - tell the player that.
If Yes -
2 - Decide if the PC needs to use a skill check or an attack roll for the reaction.
3 - Decide if DC 15 is appropriate or if it should be higher or lower based on all the relevant aspects of the attempt. Tell the player if the attempt would be easier or harder.
4 - Add any traits that are relevant to the preparation and or the reaction
If a GM is doing the above then I would say they are following the rules. IMO A GM doesn't have to agree aiding an attack while having MAP is typical. They can say that is harder and still follow the rules.
The point I am making is that 3 above set to 15 or lower or higher is all within the rules. You can disagree with a GM when they say an action is harder than normal and set the DC higher and are entitled to do so, but saying its houseruling is not appropriate.
Just to round out, I don't think the developers intended much when they wrote Aid, Especially as I found an old interview with Mark Seifter stating that the reason as to why they just said "DC 20, Adjust as needed" was not mechanical, It was about rules complexity and not being able to quickly identify suitable level/difficulty for certain tasks as it is that open ended.
Simply put, Instead of referencing tables and making alot of examples as to how they wanted it to work. They decided to just have it be an action that is fully adjudicated. Essentially.
"We believe DC20(expert DC) will be the most common."
"This works in most cases, GM can change the action as they please"
Aid tells the GM, "The typical DC is 15, but [you] might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks" (emphasis added).
The GM is not told to set the DC. The GM is told that the DC is typically (meaning the baseline expectation is) 15 and instructed that they might want to adjust it based on the difficulty.
You might decide a DC should differ from the baseline, whether to account for PCs' areas of expertise or to represent the rarity of spells or items. A DC adjustment represents an essential difference in the difficulty of a task and applies to anyone attempting a specific check for it ...
...
... These adjustments aren't taking the place of characters' bonuses, modifiers, and penalties—they are due to the applicability of the skills being used.
.
If the GM always adjusts the DC because they feel like the typical DC is too permissive, then they are diverting from RAW into houserules.
This argument was already made and discussed earlier in the thread.
If people were saying the game balance is off if you run it that way or the intention of the aid action wasn't to do things that way or its just a bad adjudication of the rules I might agree with them on some of that.
Its just saying RAW its not allowed and therefore homeruling the words on the page simply disagree.
The bonus of the pc is not being lowered by MAP so the rule for reactions is being observed.
The difference in that scenario is the DC would not be 15 since the focus of the monks round was on attacking the opponent not on aiding an ally. Now the monk would have still succeeded on the roll with that 26 but it would not be a crit success so they only provide a +1 to their ally. If the monk wanted to give the big bonuses that a crit would yield their best bet would have been to use an action to aid with the attack trait first before using other actions that increase MAP.
To be clear if a GM gives the attack trait to aid and the action is taken first that would raise MAP for subsequent attack actions and that is within the rules. And there is no point in giving aid the attack trait at all if the GM is not increasing the DC of the aid check because players will always always use it with a last action so applying the attack trait has no consequence.
I still want to see how you justify adding the Attack trait to the Preparation action. No attack roll is being made.
Devise a Strategem does not have the attack trait.
Hunt Prey does not have the attack trait.
Exploit Vulnerability does not have the attack trait.
Why does 'I am contemplating ways of assisting an ally by potentially swinging a weapon or otherwise attacking a shared enemy' have the attack trait?
Where in the aid rules says the action used to prepare to aid is contemplation?
One example provided is helping hold a lockpick steady for someone picking the lock. In that example its not a matter of contemplation its an action being taken. The pc as preparation is taking action to hold the lock steady, and that is the preparation part not the reaction.
The preparation for an ally's attack could be taking swings at the enemy yourself, the reaction is when you make your well timed attack giving your ally a better chance at getting through. Your still swinging away during the preparation. A player saying they wanted to do this I would absolutely allow to increase an ally's to hit with aid.
You know though, the disagreement I have had was that there is no addeded mechanics or adding of rules.
Removing or ignoring rules also makes the ruling "not following the rules".
So when you remove the second half of the clause here:
Aid wrote:
the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks
Then that is still a houserule.
If the only reason that you can give a player when they ask, "why is the Aid DC not 15?" is "Because I don't like how often you crit and I think a +3 or +4 bonus is too much for an action and a reaction", then that is a houserule.
If the only reason that you can give a player when they ask, "why is MAP being applied?" is "Because Aid is similar to Ready and MAP applies to Ready", then that is a houserule.
The GM can adjust the Aid DC to something other than 15... for particularly hard or easy tasks.
Ignoring the second part of that rule is a houserule. The GM has a responsibility to be able to answer the player's questions when they ask why their usage of Aid is particularly hard.
Not a single rule has been ignored. "The" rule is the GM must decide if 15 is appropriate or if the attempt is particularly harder or easier.
That is the rule. as long as the GM is making a decision either way the GM is following that rule.
Not agreeing with a GM on what is particularly hard is not the same as the GM not following the rule.
This is why I made that quip about GMs needing to come consult you before making that judgment. A GM is asked to make a judgment by rules as written. Because your argument boils down to you disagreeing with the judgment. That is not a rules argument at all its a judgment argument.
So it's been almost a week now since you started the thread. Have you been able to talk to your GM about it?
I've been waiting for the next session to bring it up since the GM is hard to reach between sessions and generally doesn't like to be bothered by such things unless we're in session.
Well good luck. I'm 90% sure this isn't about DCs and it's about your description. Hopefully either they give you guidance on what sort of description will count, or you can throw some ideas at them and see which ones they would agree to count.
Claxon wrote:
The GM controls which skills are valid to use for Aid. The GM controls the DC.
If you don't like the results you're getting, examine those two things and ask yourself if you're being too permissive.
Yes exactly. I don't see any reason to add mechanics, change the rules, interpret it to be like some other bit of rules etc. to 'keep it in check'. Maybe some tables don't like the whole judgment call aspect and would prefer the GM create additional rules that dictate exact skills, bonuses, penalties to rolls etc. If that's their preference, I guess making up more structure makes sense for them. We're old fogies though, GM judgment calls and even intentionally breaking the rules for some cool roleplaying reason is just part of what we see as the ttrpg experience. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. :)
You know though, the disagreement I have had was that there is no addeded mechanics or adding of rules.
Its kind of simple in that one GM might say its not any harder to use aid after striking and another GM saying you know what striking over and over is harder so aid when using it in a way they think should have the attack trait also is harder. ( and reaction rules are not violated, the pc bonus is not lessened, its the DC thats increased as the GM has decided 15 is not appropriate, which is within the rules to do)
Both GMs are following the rules they just dont agree on aid being harder after a strike or two.
Those two adjudications make Aid applicability very different, but neither GM has any grounds to tell the other they are not following the rules.
What's funny is that there's nearly no RAW to Aid. The only thing that is RAW is the need to use a reaction and the bonus. Besides that, the GM can do whatever they want.
And it needs to be this way because of the million ways players can try to do the action and the million factors that a GM might consider for allowing it or not, and the million ways a GM might need to decide the way the player is making the attempt is more or less difficult than a 15.
And even that statement will probably find dissent.
The bonus of the pc is not being lowered by MAP so the rule for reactions is being observed.
I'm curious. Did you cut my quote after my bullets for not applying the MAP on purpose or was that the forums truncating longer quotes?
Bluemagetim wrote:
The difference in that scenario is the DC would not be 15 since the focus of the monks round was on attacking the opponent not on aiding an ally...
So, you completely ignored everything I wrote (that was omitted in your quote). Got it.
That's sloppy logic. Nothing in the Aid rules say that Aid is made "particularly hard" because the character was focused on something other than aiding an ally. By the logic implicit in, "The difference in that scenario is the DC would not be 15 since the focus of the monks round was on attacking the opponent not on aiding an ally," then the DC can never be 15 unless the character spends all of their actions (i.e focusing on aiding) preparing to aid an ally.
The base DC of Aid is 15 regardless of any other actions, or order of actions, the character takes on their round.
The base function of Aid is to assist an ally making a skill check or attack roll.
Erego, the base DC of Aiding an attack roll is 15. Adding the Attack trait to the prep action or the Aid reaction check doesn't change that whatsoever.
Bluemagetim wrote:
... If the monk wanted to give the big bonuses that a crit would yield their best bet would have been to use an action to aid with the attack trait first before using other actions that increase MAP.
Now that's just plain silly. Absolutely nothing in the rules for Aid state or imply that the difficulty of the Aid reaction check is in any way based on the order of operations during the aiding players turn.
Adjudicating Aid difficulty based on the order of operation (third action vs. first action) is absolutely a house rule.
Just gonna throw one thing out there, as for the most part I agree with the over all consensus I'm seeing of lack of communication.
You've specified that you beat a DC15... is it possible your GM's understanding of Aid is till pre-master? when the DC was 20? This might be barking up the wrong tree, but It's a reasonable explanation I could easily think of where he didn't realize/forgot it changed, and thus didn't think he had to explain why you failed when you thought you succeeded.
That doesn't seem to be the case. A couple times I crit succeeded against 15, which would have been at least a success had the GM been assuming DC 20 instead. Yet, he said I had failed altogether.
So in other words, The GM does change the DC depending on the way you aid and how hard said thing would be?
Sounds like there is a bit of communication that isnt happening here such as how the GM chooses the DC. Probably selecting based on level or simple DC.
Ravingdork I would ask your GM does my character understand if this aid action is harder than normal? At least then you could decide if its worth trying.
Can you provide an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike?
I'm guessing many explanations will be something they are doing to the enemy to help their ally get a hit in.
Since you followed up with your observation that a cross-topic was, "talking about using the attack form of aid such that the GM has decided it should have the attack trait," I've given thought to such an example.
Monica the Monk Ki Rushes the BBEG and flurries with Flurry of Maneuvers, striking but failing to Trip the BBEG. Now, she knows that Barbara the Barbarian is going to Rage then Sudden Charge the BBEG. So, instead of stepping away or attempting to Trip the BBEG again, Monica the Monk prepares to shoulder-check the BBEG to knock him off balance to Aid Barbara the Barbarian's Strike at the end of the Sudden Charge. End turn.
Barbara the Barbarian, predictably, Rages and Sudden Charges the BBEG. At the end of her movement when she is about to Strike, Monica the Monk takes her Aid reaction. The GM determines that the description "shoulder-check the BBEG to knock him off balance" is similar enough to the Shove action that he calls for an Athletics check with the Attack trait. Monica the Monk rolls Athletics and, between the die roll and proficiency, scores a 26. "Critical Success!" declares the GM, and, since Monica the Monk is a master in Athletics, Barbara the Barbarian gains a +3 circumstance bonus to her Strike.
There is zero reason, in this example, following the Aidrules to apply MAP here.
The preparatory action does not require a roll. Thus, it neither suffers from nor adds to the MAP, even if the GM gives the prep action the Attack trait.
The Athletics roll as a reaction, even with the Attack trait, per the...
The bonus of the pc is not being lowered by MAP so the rule for reactions is being observed.
The difference in that scenario is the DC would not be 15 since the focus of the monks round was on attacking the opponent not on aiding an ally. Now the monk would have still succeeded on the roll with that 26 but it would not be a crit success so they only provide a +1 to their ally. If the monk wanted to give the big bonuses that a crit would yield their best bet would have been to use an action to aid with the attack trait first before using other actions that increase MAP.
To be clear if a GM gives the attack trait to aid and the action is taken first that would raise MAP for subsequent attack actions and that is within the rules. And there is no point in giving aid the attack trait at all if the GM is not increasing the DC of the aid check because players will always always use it with a last action so applying the attack trait has no consequence.
If a GM is using the attack trait at all then increasing the DC according to the MAP at time of prep makes things reciprocal.
Doing things this way is not a house rule.
The DC increase is within rules as particularly hard. if the monk wants the 15 DC to aid make aid the first attack action for the round and take MAP for subsequent attacks.
It has nothing to do with the rules for reactions not applying MAP. Those rules are referring to lowering the pc bonus to hit. There is no lowering to hit going on at all for the aid reaction.
Also I am not saying a GM cannot run things as written the way you described it. What have said is both interpretations are within the rules.
Can you provide an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike?
I'm guessing many explanations will be something they are doing to the enemy to help their ally get a hit in.
Deception Check to distract the target a la Create a Diversions flavor text, "With a gesture, a trick, or some distracting words, you can create a diversion that draws creatures' attention elsewhere."
Regardless, you're trying to get me into an "Ah ha! See!" moment regarding my distinction between a Readied action directly affecting an enemy and an Aid reaction that does not. It won't work. (Whether it is a disingenuous effort remains to be seen.)
A Readied attack action has a direct, mechanical effect on an enemy. It does damage, grabs/trips/shoves, etc an enemy. Regardless of what the Aid action is describing is does to the enemy, it has no direct, mechanical effect on the enemy. The direct, mechanical effect is on the ally. And that is a huge distinction.
No I was upfront about my intent behind asking the question by saying what I thought would be the common response to it. So it was not an attempt at a gotcha or disingenuous.
Fair enough.
Quote:
Also Im a bit confused there is your pc using create a distraction (I meant diversion I get that name mixed up all the time) instead of aid?
Mea culpa. I wasn't clear in presenting my, "example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike." So, let me clarify it.
On my turn, I declare my intention (prep action) to Aid an ally's attack describing my assistance as distracting the enemy's attention. Then on my ally's turn, as my reaction I roll a Deception Check to Aid. I clear the DC 15, narratively distract the enemy enough that my...
You would allow a deception roll to add to an ally's + to hit with a strike?
I typically require a like action, like deception can be used to aid feint or create a diversion.
An attack roll would be used to aid an attack. Some even restrict it to a melee attack to aid a melee attack.
But I guess another GM might see using deception just as specific to the task at hand but I am not sure it is because deception skills typically achieve different results that + to hit. And yes I am saying achieving the off guard condition from feint as different from a + to hit.
Can you provide an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike?
I'm guessing many explanations will be something they are doing to the enemy to help their ally get a hit in.
Deception Check to distract the target a la Create a Diversions flavor text, "With a gesture, a trick, or some distracting words, you can create a diversion that draws creatures' attention elsewhere."
Regardless, you're trying to get me into an "Ah ha! See!" moment regarding my distinction between a Readied action directly affecting an enemy and an Aid reaction that does not. It won't work. (Whether it is a disingenuous effort remains to be seen.)
A Readied attack action has a direct, mechanical effect on an enemy. It does damage, grabs/trips/shoves, etc an enemy. Regardless of what the Aid action is describing is does to the enemy, it has no direct, mechanical effect on the enemy. The direct, mechanical effect is on the ally. And that is a huge distinction.
No I was upfront about my intent behind asking the question by saying what I thought would be the common response to it. So it was not an attempt at a gotcha or disingenuous.
Worked or not is weird way to think of it. Also Im a bit confused there is your pc using create a distraction (I meant diversion I get that name mixed up all the time) instead of aid?
Were talking about using the attack form of aid such that the GM has decided it should have the attack trait.
As they are two distinct and separate actions, with their own rules, it is not logical to assume that the intent is that they follow the same rules.
Aid specifically indicates that you can add any trait you want to the preparation or the reaction.
That is irrelevant. Adding the Attack trait to an Aid reaction does not change the Aid reaction into a Readied Action. An Aid to attack does not perform a Strike. It is an attack roll that may grant a bonus to a willing ally's Strike.
Conversely, a Readied Strike is a Strike. If the attack rolls is successful, it will deal Strike damage to the target, but, otherwise, has no direct benefit to an ally.
The only similarity between Aid and Ready is that the player is exchanging one or more actions on their turn to gain a custom reaction.
Quote:
That's why I use this rule, because I feel an intent that Aid should work like Ready.
Key words: "I feel."
Quote:
Also, I love when some of you use the argument that Aid should work like "other reaction attacks" but then you bring the argument that it shouldn't work like Ready (which is the closest reaction attack to Aid in the game).
/sigh
Ready has specific language -- heck, a specific paragraph to that point -- that overrides the general rule for MAP. Aid does not have any such language.
It is illogical to infer intent when one dedicates a paragraph to highlight the exception to the general rule while the other has no hint of such.
Furthermore, a Readied reaction attack is not close to a reaction attack to Aid. The former targets an enemy with either a Strike, a one-action Attack Spell, or an Athletics maneuver. It will have a direct impact on an enemy. The latter does nothing to an enemy directly. Instead, it grants a bonus to an ally. These two things are not remotely close to each other.
Can you provide an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike?
I'm guessing many explanations will be something they are doing to the enemy to help their ally get a hit in.
Why is Bob the fighter aiding by a reaction 'attack' (which does no damage) harder than Bob the fighter striking by a reaction attack?
It's not harder. The closest rule to Aid is Ready which applies MAP.
Ready has specific language to apply the MAP to a Readied Strike. Aid lacks any such language. It is entirely houserule land to read a rule from one mechanic (Ready) into another mechanic (Aid) lacking that rule simply because they are similar.
As stated earlier in the thread the GM is not changing the bonus to roll for the pc.
The rules say to determine if 15 is appropriate or if the aid is particularly harder or easier than that.
The GM is just determining having MAP when preparing the aid is a qualifying situation for increasing the DC. The GM is also giving the attack trait to the aid actions which is also allowed by the written rules, and by the rules having the attack trait doesn't reduce the bonus for the reaction when using it to aid. The pc is keeping their full bonus to the aid check.
None of this is in houserule land.
I feel like this was said before but what is aid more alike? Is it more alike readying an action or more like reactive strike?
Ehh... It is more similar to Embodiment of Battle.
Just because you have to spend an action during your turn casting or sustaining Embodiment of Battle doesn't mean that the reaction has MAP applied.
I'm guessing that was humor.
That would be comparing a generally available action with no investment cost to a focus spell from a class feature. They are not similar in power, cost, and availability.
But readying an action just like aid is a generally available action anyone can use with no investment. I think that is the bigger sticking point.
So, when a player wants to Aid through an Attack Roll, I give the Attack trait to Aid. And the Attack trait is affected by MAP.
Attacks taken as part of your turn are affected by MAP. Attacks made as reactions done during someone else's turn are not.
But I think we may be arguing in circles, as this exact point was brought up by another poster earlier in the conversation.
Quote:
But the Aid reaction gives me leeway to increase its difficulty if tasks are harder. And penalties are clearly making a task harder.
Agreed, as the GM you have the choice to increase the difficulty if tasks are harder.
Why is Bob the fighter aiding by a reaction 'attack' (which does no damage) harder than Bob the fighter striking by a reaction attack? I will presume you don't add MAP to the latter, so why are you adding it to the former?
I feel like this was said before but what is aid more alike? Is it more alike readying an action or more like reactive strike?
One is a class feature of the fighter and takes a feat for other classes to obtain, the other is a general action anyone can use without any investment.
I wouldnt think aid is comparable to reactive strike.
Though it is more like readying an action both in cost(actually its cheaper) and in investment to be able to use.
And of course its different in ways from either of them with instructions to the GM to make a judgment call on difficulty.
Which is why i dont fault the gm that decides either way on it.
So should all the GMs out there come check with you first before they decide what is particularly hard before they adjust the DC of Aid?
Me personally? Of course not. Don't be silly.
No, the GM needs to discuss that with the player doing the Aid attempt. That is the discussion that is needed every time the GM is going to change the typical DC.
Bluemagetim wrote:
If aiding a melee attack borrowing the examples that Ravingdork provided of magnetics and rolling seas as particularly hard and the GM keeps it that way everytime those things happen its still rules as written.
You are misunderstanding me.
Yes, every time the character prepares to Aid and does the Aid reaction while on the deck of a boat at sea, the GM can use that narrative to justify increasing the DC.
The inconsistency is when every time Aid is used with no narrative explanation of why this usage of Aid is more difficult than is typical, but the GM is still raising the DC. That isn't a change for a narratively justified 'particularly hard' usage of Aid, that is a houserule change to the typical Aid DC.
Bluemagetim wrote:
Deciding aiding while having map is particularly hard is no different other than you disagree with the judgement call.
In fact consistency in rulings that are based on judgement calls like deciding what is particularly hard is a good thing.
I'm thinking it is the other way around. The people most strenuously arguing that the GM can change the DC on a whim are also the ones giving initial statements like this:
Tridus wrote:
It also makes no sense to me that someone trained in a skill who had absolutely no hope of doing the thing themselves is capable of providing meaningful assistance to someone who is legendary in the skill doing something extremely difficult.
That's also true in combat: the idea that you can provide a +4 bonus (which almost nothing else in the game is capable of doing) on a DC 15 check that is impossible to fail is
...
We might have to just agree to disagree.
I made that hopefully slightly witty joke because we will not find in the rules a reason a GM cannot decide it is particularly hard to aid an ally after striking once or twice with the first two actions in a round when giving aid the attack trait. It is not a house rule to use the line that referring to a GM deciding something is particularly hard or easy.
And my point on the reaction was not that MAP is reducing the aid roll but that the GM is determining the MAP from preparation is increasing the DC of the reaction. A decision that is in the GMs hands.
But I will give you this. Even if it was RAW it might still not be the best way to run things if it makes Aid unusable.
from what I was positing aiding would be weighted as any attack action would when its given the attack trait by the GM for that particular kind of use. So no map preparation would be a DC 15 if there is nothing else making it harder or easier. In that way even the conception I was using for my argument still fits into the first of your argument stances, just not the second.
Maybe I was misunderstood. I was actually saying exactly that 'particularly hard' is why it can be seen as RAW to do things that way.
How is it 'particularly hard' to run Aid exactly as described?
Aid is supposed to be used with and for attack rolls. So how are you saying that doing so is 'particularly hard'? Aid is supposed to be used at high level play to aid allies attacking high level enemies. So how is doing so 'particularly hard'?
What does 'particularly hard' mean to you?
For that matter, what would 'particularly easy' mean? What scenario would cause you to lower the DC of Aid? What Aid task would have a DC of 10? How about a DC of 3?
I do want to give a good answer here. But first I will say I am not a RAW argument person. I dont do things by RAW when its not the most fun way to run the game for my group. Thats always my bottom line.
But, I do recognize here with Aid as its written a GM deciding things differently than what some have claimed for what is particularly hard or easy as the only RAW argument is odd. RAW a GM is perfectly within bounds saying preparing to AId after striking twice is more difficult than using aid before striking (and by giving aid the attack trait those strikes would be particularly harder to hit with after aiding.) It becomes reciprocal.
What I think is happening in this conversation is there has been a way of running aid some here have been used to and anything different than that they are seeing as abnormal and absurd. Which may be true for them, but it is also within RAW.
The importance of RAW in flexible rules like Aid is to keep a baseline to help the GM in how to rule it without make the thing too goo or too bad.
For example initially I houseruled to use the Level-Based DCs in Aids after level 1 because the DC 15 is basically the same DC of a defaut level 1 DC. But after some gameplay I noticed that the...
I agree with the goal too to make options available balanced. Im only arguing a GM has the rules as written justification to make a call on what is particularly hard and that map can be a reason for that GM.
Is it balanced to do so is another thing entirely and I would want to run things in a way that is balanced even when the rules allow it to not be.
Simply aiding an attack, all it's own should not be considered an easy or hard task. Any GM who thinks otherwise is being disingenuous and punitive.
Yeah. I'm trying to be polite by saying that it is not RAW.
Typical uses of Aid use the typical DC. The typical DC is 15. That is RAW.
Again, the rule is, "The typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks."
The second half of that sentence doesn't invalidate the first half. If you permanently change the DC to be based on the level of the characters or the enemies, then you are changing the typical DC - not adding an adjustment for a 'particularly hard' use case of Aid.
Changing the typical DC of aid is a houserule.
Ravingdork wrote:
It's for things like aiding an attack in a blizzard, or on a rolling ship deck at sea, or when magnetic forces speed your weapon towards your target.
Still waiting for anyone to present a scenario that would cause the GM to lower the DC for a particularly easy Aid task.
If people can justify raising the typical DC by 17 points up to DC 32 just because you are fighting a level 14 creature, what would cause you to lower the typical DC by 12 points to be DC 3?
So should all the GMs out there come check with you first before they decide what is particularly hard before they adjust the DC of Aid?
Cause thats one of two things you are implying.
The other is that there can be no permanent thing that is particularly hard. That doesnt make sense to me. If aiding a melee attack borrowing the examples that Ravingdork provided of magnetics and rolling seas as particularly hard and the GM keeps it that way everytime those things happen its still rules as written. Deciding aiding while having map is particularly hard is no different other than you disagree with the judgement call.
In fact consistency in rulings that are based on judgement calls like deciding what is particularly hard is a good thing.
Again the reaction on this take is more likely because you find the judgment call absurd not because its outside RAW to make that judgment.
Maybe I was misunderstood. I was actually saying exactly that 'particularly hard' is why it can be seen as RAW to do things that way.
How is it 'particularly hard' to run Aid exactly as described?
Aid is supposed to be used with and for attack rolls. So how are you saying that doing so is 'particularly hard'? Aid is supposed to be used at high level play to aid allies attacking high level enemies. So how is doing so 'particularly hard'?
What does 'particularly hard' mean to you?
For that matter, what would 'particularly easy' mean? What scenario would cause you to lower the DC of Aid? What Aid task would have a DC of 10? How about a DC of 3?
I do want to give a good answer here. But first I will say I am not a RAW argument person. I dont do things by RAW when its not the most fun way to run the game for my group. Thats always my bottom line.
But, I do recognize here with Aid as its written a GM deciding things differently than what some have claimed for what is particularly hard or easy as the only RAW argument is odd. RAW a GM is perfectly within bounds saying preparing to AId after striking twice is more difficult than using aid before striking (and by giving aid the attack trait those strikes would be particularly harder to hit with after aiding.) It becomes reciprocal.
What I think is happening in this conversation is there has been a way of running aid some here have been used to and anything different than that they are seeing as abnormal and absurd. Which may be true for them, but it is also within RAW.
Which is almost never. It is already out of combat and in encounter mode. It is the difference between fluffy time and a bit less fluffy time. Most people are never going to see the difference.
Thats a matter of scenarios a GM sets up and how often time is a factor for those scenarios.
I'm not sure how APs are in this regard but for my home games I will set up scenes so that my players choices come into play.
In a way my players are telling me the kinds of gameplay they are interested in by the skill feats they choose so to some degree I like to accommodate those choices with how I set up scenarios.
Couldn't a GM be valid in saying preparing to attack alongside an ally to aid them (which is kind of what is being done if the preparation is given the attack trait, just its an attack to aid not an attack to do damage.) that it is not really all that different conceptually from a readied attack and reasonably harder when it was prepared with higher MAP?
Not while also claiming that they are running by RAW.
It is a logical houserule, yes. Maybe even a reasonable one. But it is still a houserule.
I'm citing my rules sources. That is why I can claim RAW. Because the rules that I am using to make my case are Written. I can point to them.
The only weak point in my argument that I can see is my statement that:
It is not a 'particularly hard' usage of Aid if it is the standard usage of Aid.
That is what you need to argue against.
The rest of my reasoning follows from that premise and the printed rules.
Aid is designed to be used to assist attack rolls. The typical DC for Aid is 15. It doesn't make a distinction for the level of the ally being assisted or the level of the enemy being attacked.
The Aid Reaction is designed to not happen during your turn. MAP does not apply to Reactions made when it is not your turn, and the GM should not be adjusting the DC to 'compensate' for that. The developers didn't forget that MAP doesn't apply to reactions. Aid is not Ready. The Ready Reaction has an exception that causes MAP to apply, Aid does not.
Changes to the DC for Aid should be for actual exceptional circumstances when using the Aid mechanics, not for general use cases of Aid.
Maybe I was misunderstood. I was actually saying exactly that 'particularly hard' is why it can be seen as RAW to do things that way.
Finoan wrote:
I understand the argument. I do not agree that it is RAW.
This part is RAW: "when you are aiding using an attack roll it will gain the attack trait by GM decision".
This part is not RAW: "doing so will increase the DC of the aid check by the amount of MAP for that preparation".
Aid is designed to be a Reaction. And Reactions made when it is not your turn do not have MAP applied.
In order to increase the DC and claim RAW, the increase needs to be based on "particularly hard" Aid mechanics.
A general rule applied to all Aid attempts or all Aid attempts of a category (such as Aid attempts that use attack rolls or aid attack rolls) is a houserule. It isn't a 'particularly hard' usage of Aid if it is the standard usage of Aid.
So a general rule that "using Aid to help an ally with Strike actions will have the DC set to the standard DC for the level of the creature being attacked by Strike" is a houserule. It is a change to the general rule for Aid saying that the typical DC is 15.
And a general rule that "using an attack roll for Aid will have MAP apply during the Reaction" is a houserule. It is a change to the general rule that MAP doesn't apply to checks made when it is not your turn by adding an override clause to the Aid reaction.
I was claiming RAW precisely because a GM has to determine what "particularly hard" by the rules as written and because a GM needs to decide if aiding has traits rules as written.
Responding to your points I didn't actually see a RAW argument that is any more valid than what I originally said.
You say reactions don't suffer map, that's true, but aid isn't suffering map, the player bonus is not less at all(The DC is being increased based on it being particularly hard which is raw)
Standard usage is semantics in this situation, not a RAW argument.
I agree the rules say a typical DC is 15. but there is nothing that says that when a GM gives the attack trait and the action is used while there is MAP that it is typical and not particularly hard.
When I said this, I thought I was conveying the above without having to spell it out because I know how knowledgeable of the rules you are.
Bluemagetim wrote:
It doesn't seem unreasonable for a GM to say if you prepared with higher map that the aid reaction was "particularly hard"
Superbidi is just saying when you are aiding using an attack roll it will gain the attack trait by GM decision, and doing so will increase the DC of the aid check by the amount of MAP for that preparation also by GM decision. Both of which are RAW to do.
I understand the argument. I do not agree that it is RAW.
This part is RAW: "when you are aiding using an attack roll it will gain the attack trait by GM decision".
This part is not RAW: "doing so will increase the DC of the aid check by the amount of MAP for that preparation".
Aid is designed to be a Reaction. And Reactions made when it is not your turn do not have MAP applied.
In order to increase the DC and claim RAW, the increase needs to be based on "particularly hard" Aid mechanics.
A general rule applied to all Aid attempts or all Aid attempts of a category (such as Aid attempts that use attack rolls or aid attack rolls) is a houserule. It isn't a 'particularly hard' usage of Aid if it is the standard usage of Aid.
So a general rule that "using Aid to help an ally with Strike actions will have the DC set to the standard DC for the level of the creature being attacked by Strike" is a houserule. It is a change to the general rule for Aid saying that the typical DC is 15.
And a general rule that "using an attack roll for Aid will have MAP apply during the Reaction" is a houserule. It is a change to the general rule that MAP doesn't apply to checks made when it is not your turn by adding an override clause to the Aid reaction.
Couldn't a GM be valid in saying preparing to attack alongside an ally to aid them (which is kind of what is being done if the preparation is given the attack trait, just its an attack to aid not an attack to do damage.) that it is not really all that different conceptually from a readied attack and reasonably harder when it was prepared with higher MAP?
I am not sure I would run aid this way but it has some logic to it. It doesnt seem unreasonable for a GM to say if you prepared with higher map that the aid reaction was "particularly hard"
It certainly is a big difference in what aid is good for though.
If you give the preparation action the attack trait
Why would you do that?
I could understand giving the Aid Reaction the attack trait because that is when the attack roll is being rolled.
"Preparing to make an attack" wouldn't have the Attack trait. Drawing a weapon doesn't have the Attack trait. Picking a target to swing at doesn't have the attack trait (and isn't even an action). Devise a Strategem doesn't have the Attack trait.
Also, if you give the Aid Preparation the Attack trait, then it would increase MAP stage for the rest of your current turn.
If you save the preparation for last, that shouldn't be an issue. It wouldn't affect your aid reaction either because MAP doesn't apply outside your turn.
Superbidi is just saying when you are aiding using an attack roll it will gain the attack trait by GM decision, and doing so will increase the DC of the aid check by the amount of MAP for that preparation also by GM decision. Both of which are RAW to do.
For my part I don't restrict the physical things either as a hard lock.
Rolling landing is an example of this.
It was the thing that made me change my mind about hard locking something a player wants to attempt just because they don't have the feet.
I did have a player want to roll after jumping down from a higher place and told them there is a feat for that, since you dont have it yet you cant do it.
That just wasnt the kind of game I wanted to keep running. So I decided something like that would not be hard locked away from players who want to attempt it, instead the feat gives the ability to do it without having to roll to see if they failed at it.
So the way I run things is to ask the player what they are attempting, then they roll, then I narrate the outcome.
I think Superbidi is getting around the idea of it being a house rule because technically the increase is to the DC using GM discretion to adjust DCs for an aid check.
Yes, that seems to be a common theme.
The rule says:
Aid wrote:
The typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks.
"particularly hard or easy".
To me that implies that it is for things that are not already part of what Aid describes as standard uses of Aid. The things that Aid gives as examples or standard scenarios are not "particularly hard or easy".
Aiding an attack roll is given as a standard scenario. "Trigger: An ally is about to use an action that requires a skill check or attack roll." The GM shouldn't be increasing the DC due to Aiding an attack roll. That isn't "particularly hard". That is what Aid is supposed to be doing.
Aid is defined as a reaction that pretty much always happens during your ally's turn instead of your own. MAP doesn't apply. The GM shouldn't be increasing the DC due to making a check when it isn't your turn. That doesn't qualify as being "particularly hard".
In general, just like the player should have to describe exactly how they are providing Aid, the GM should be able to describe exactly why the DC is increased for being particularly hard.
A point here also would be that a player could use aid as thier first action. then do thier strikes and completely and always avoid adding in map through order of actions.
I think Superbidi is getting around the idea of it being a house rule because technically the increase is to the DC using GM discretion to adjust DCs for an aid check.
Aid
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’s 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.
GM Core leaves it up to a GM to decide if aid is possible.
Player Core says the GM can change the DC.
I would just be transparent about the chances. If they need a higher than normal roll to succeed I will tell a player its going to be difficult but you can try.
If its impossible I wont let the player waste an action and reaction. Ill just say its so unlikely to succeed you would be wasting your action to try.
Quick coercion has benefits when time matters.
Like if you have 3-4 rounds before guards arrive and your cover is blown to get information out of an NPC.
There isn't enough time to coerce them normally.
Without the feat I would make this more difficult than normal. A pc with the feat gets to use one round to coerce without the DC being harder than normal.
probably could have also used gladhand to make an impression then make a request to get the information with diplomacy.
Quick coercion is a feat that gives a player a time shortcut for the standard coercion rule. the shortcut is automatic for those with the feat.
Standard coercion just like quick coercion is not applicable in a combat encounter.
Here is what that means for me.
A player cannot end an encounter with a coercion roll just because they want to roll for it, even if they roll a 20, its not standard, what is standard is using demoralize to apply a stat penalty. This does not mean a GM cannot decide a coercion attempt makes sense in the circumstance and does in fact end combat while the enemies flee.
But it isnt standard use of coercion because combat in this game is meant to normally be a balanced battle experience. As GM though that might not be what you want in every combat, and may want narrative situations to take precedence.
I would say clever use of terrain could end a fight, saying something learned in game that triggers an NPC that you meant to just be a social encounter could change it to a combat encounter. Some fluidity is needed to make an engaging game IMO.
Yeah, this is what I am talking about. And now I need ideas, how to change quick coercion so it would connect with roleplay better. Because, again. Player who's narratively setting knife to someone throat is already pretty quick way to coerce someone in social "encounter"
Coercion connects to roleplay just fine. Its what a player uses to convince npcs to act against their own inclinations (through threat of consequence), GM sets the DC and applys any circumstance modifiers and the player rolls for it using the time it takes to do it.
In this game pulling out a knife against a knowing npc would normally trigger initiative.
If the GM determines the npc has the will to fight, do combat as normal. PLayers dont always get what they want. They may say they put the knife to the NPCs throat but thats only what they are attempting. What actually happens depends on other factors. The NPC doesnt have to let the pc do that to them. If the PC is trying to get the knife there before the npc could react thats its own set of rolls that probably come from stealth and may well be impossible if the npc is paying attention to the pc.
But really this scenario is not very heroic and game themes and tone need to be considered as a table.
Group impression says you can make an impression on more npcs with no penalty.
I treat group coercion the same even though they didnt write it with that phrase.
My second question to you was about quick coercion, not group coercion. But thanks
For some reason people in my thread don't understand that I'm asking this, because some of mechanics RAW creat big dissonance with narrative, and how It could be fixed. Not that i want to turn my hypotetical situations in 1 wizard vs 6000 soldiers encounter, because mechanically they wouldn't flee or that this feats is essential for people who just want to "I make an impression on x people, because feat allow me to do that, and then roll"
Quick coercion is a feat that gives a player a time shortcut for the standard coercion rule. the shortcut is automatic for those with the feat.
Standard coercion just like quick coercion is not applicable in a combat encounter.
Here is what that means for me.
A player cannot end an encounter with a coercion roll just because they want to roll for it, even if they roll a 20, its not standard, what is standard is using demoralize to apply a stat penalty. This does not mean a GM cannot decide a coercion attempt makes sense in the circumstance and does in fact end combat while the enemies flee.
But it isnt standard use of coercion because combat in this game is meant to normally be a balanced battle experience. As GM though that might not be what you want in every combat, and may want narrative situations to take precedence.
I would say clever use of terrain could end a fight, saying something learned in game that triggers an NPC that you meant to just be a social encounter could change it to a combat encounter. Some fluidity is needed to make an engaging game IMO.
Group impression says you can make an impression on more npcs with no penalty.
I treat group coercion the same even though they didnt write it with that phrase.
I dont run the skill feats talked about so far as hard locks on in game options. I tried it that way at first and didnt like it.
There are two things that happen when you do that.
First is doing so requires game knowledge of all the skill feats in the game to know whats locked. Kind of a ln absurd barrier for GMs learning the system.
Second it doesnt work out well in play to tell players theres a feat for that and since you dont have it you cant even try.
So I just consider the circumstances with what is being attempted and set an appropriate difficulty like with anything else. If they have the feat the thing comes easier or can be automatic.
No charming liar vs having it?
The feat adds a rider effect to crit success. It happens when your not even attempting to use deception to improve NPC opinions of you. (This would get a dc based on gullibility and how hard to believe the lie is for the npc, it may also be temporary because the lie could be exposed)
If your attempt is to improve their opinion of you then its not something else like convincing the npc the item you are selling them is an antique from old Taldor instead of a pot you found lying around the market. With charming lier a crit success on convincing the npc for selling the pot also increases their opinion of you. They dont just believe the pot is an antique they also think your a great guy for giving them first crack at a deal to buy it.
There does seem to be a problem there because the GM is letting you roll without telling you how plausible your explanation is so you at least have an idea if your attempt is far fetched to their mind.
You should as a player be given some info back when you say how you want to provide aid to an ally. That way you as a player can decide to use the action in the first place or to just do something else.
I read back through the runelord entry in the book again.
I think its pretty clearly anathema for envy to summon elementals.
It was like a lightbulb after reading sloth again and looking at its spell list.
Sloth singles out direct harm with elemental magic leaving indirect as an option and includes summon elemental on their sin spell list. They are fully at home summoning an elemental to do the harm for them. Envy however is not, it restricts using elemental magic to harm period.
But its not because of the abilities of the elemental (im correcting my previous post there) its because elemental summons are elemental magic that causes indirect harm.
Muse Harmonious has not participated in any online campaigns.
