Nekrotisch's page

Vista wrote:

My position is clearly RAW as I am quoting the rules as written, although my position may not be RAI and my interpretation may not be the common interpretation.

It all comes down to the phrase "kind of skill check" written in the rules which I interpret to mean the kinds of skill checks listed under the Common Uses of a skill and the common interpretation is that it is a superfluous phrase.

Quoting the rules does not make one's position RAW. Holding a position that accurately reflects the rules quoted makes one's position RAW. In your case, you have interpreted the rules in a way that penalizes failure on Aid Another checks based on a rule in the Diplomacy section for influencing attitudes. There is no rule in the Aid Another section or the Diplomacy skill which explicitly or implicitly imposes a penalty for a failed Aid Another check. The rule does not exist, nor is there any implication that such a rule does exist, so positions which come to a different conclusion are, by definition, not "Rules As Written."

Does that mean you made a bad ruling? Not necessarily - such houserules are relatively common. If you look further back in the thread you'll find that I agree that there should be a penalty on failed Aid Another checks, although if you ask me it should just be a minor penalty like a -2. When rulings like this occur I think it's very important to be lenient, especially when making rulings like this one where the players were likely not aware of the potential consequences before making the check. If the players think it's fair then I'd let it slide the first time (since it's a new ruling) and start enforcing it thereafter, but if the players are overwhelmingly against it like Nekrotisch stated earlier I'd recommend not using it at all. After all, the primary goal is to have fun, and if a rule is actively detrimental to the players' fun you may be better off not using it.

I do think that failing an Aid Another shouldn't be completely fine to do with no impact, but you actually bring up a huge point: We didn't know this ruling before the decision to make the roll, this ruling was nowhere to be found, and after we were told the ruling (after making the roll) we wanted to know if we could go back, now knowing that it could hurt us so badly, only to find out that we could not. This kind of houseruling and interpretations of the rules that he has made in the past is largely why Kharn and I have quit, believe me this kind of stuff has happened before.

Besides that, I agree with Adjoint's thoughts on it not being the same use of the skill check. This is actually one of the points that I myself brought up when discussing it with the group, along with the confusion as to whom the target is. As a GM myself, I would rule that the "target" of the Aid Another check is actually the person you are aiding (makes sense that you would focus on the person you are acting towards). Further, I agree with LuniasM on that a ruling that does not have a base on the current rules is not an interpretation, but rather a new rule entirely. In simpler terms, creating a penalty is always a houserule, expanding upon an existing rule that affects the situation at hand CAN be an interpretation (not always though).

And sidenote, I was the only getting pissy about the ruling, the others were very calm about everything. Kinda feel like that is a character assassination towards specifically the friend of mine that immediately walked away.

To be clear, none of us quit specifically because of the ruling, two of us did because we this was basically just the last straw, i.e. there were other rulings we disagree with and other things happening in the campaign that we felt were rather unfair. Just thought I would pop in and state that real quick as someone mentioned walking away because of it would be an over-reaction, and I felt that would be unfair for my friend who can't defend himself.