Pixel Popper's page

Ryangwy wrote:

Oh, yeah. I never cared for any arguments that counted compound activities as Strikes, but seeing all this here - no. Only Strikes are 'Strikes'.

Maybe in some cases it can be reviewed, but generally - deal with it.

Then Investigators and Rogues are boned and it is TBTBT.

Both of their precision damage class abilities (Strategic Strike and Sneak Attack, respectively) would only ever apply to the Strike basic action, not Strike subordinate actions. Double Slice offers some insight that, in fact, it does not work that way with the Specific overriding General by limiting ticks of precision damage to only one of the subordinate Strikes.

Under a "Only Strikes are 'Strikes'" convention -- note, I mentally translate that to: "Only basic action Strikes, not subordinate action Strikes, are 'Strikes'[/i] -- only Precision Rangers would be able to gain precision damage when performing a Double Slice since their Edge states (with added emphasis), "The first time you hit your hunted prey..."

Then there is Mug. It is a two-action activity with a Strike subordinate action, and it says (with added emphasis): "... Make a melee Strike against an adjacent enemy. If you hit and deal sneak attack damage, you can also attempt to Steal from the target, even if the target is in combat." The verbiage implies that the subordinate Strike, in general, will deal Sneak Attack damage if the target is off-guard.

The intent seems pretty clear that Strategic Strike and Sneak Attack apply to any Strike, basic or subordinate. Otherwise, Mug would have had different language creating a Specific override to the General; something like, "If your target is off-guard and you hit, deal sneak attack damage and you may also attempt to Steal..."

Since neither Strategic Strike nor Sneak Attack have any verbiage indicating that those abilities are creating a Specific vs. General override, I conclude that, in general, there is no distinction between simple Strikes and subordinate Strikes; they are all Strikes.

It does create some disconnect between "your next action is" and "your last action was". Any "your next action is" a Strike would not work with Double Slice, Flurry of Blows, Mug, Skirmish Strike, Sudden Charge, etcetera. The next action is the activity, not the subordinate actions. Conversely, "your last action was" a Strike does work with activities that end with a subordinate Strike.

I think "a square adjacent" instead of "the square adjacent" is reasonable to say, because there can be multiple squares that are both fair choices for that.

For example, consider this situation, with you ‍♂️ and a spider ️.
.

◻️◻️◻️◻️◻️◻️
‍♂️◻️◻️◻️◻️
◻️◻️◻️◻️◻️️

The blue spots would be reasonable, they're the shortest to you. The top red one is not the shortest path so can't be direct. The left one goes past you, which doesn't survive a good-faith plain text reading of the ability.

Corner squares are also adjacent.

Quote:

Notably, the trigger must be something that happens in the game world and is observable by the character, rather than a rules concept that doesn’t exist in-world.

"A rules concept that doesn't exist in-world."

can be confusing due to the negative, but this is a reading comprehension issue.

Correct. It is a reading comprehension issue. Yours.

Pixel Popper wrote:

This entire sentence is, emphatically, a "ban on 'using game mechanics' inside that text." The must-be/rather-than construction establishes a requirement ("must be") and an exclusion, or "ban" if you will ("rather than").

That is incorrect.

It's a "ban" on Ready using triggers with: "rules concepts that do not exist in-world"

This is a subset of a subset.
Of the subset of "rules concepts," the subset within of "do not exist in-world" are banned.

Nope. It is not a subset of a subset. It is a ban on "rules concepts" because "[they] do not exist in-world." I suspect the usage of "that" instead of "which" or "because" is what is tripping you up Trip.

The phrase, "that doesn't exist in-world," is emphasizing why rules concepts are proscribed: because they are not observable. They are not observable because they do not exist in-world.

This results in the exact same outcome as I stated previously.

Rules concepts that are world-observable, are fine.

There are no in-world observable rules concepts. That's the point. There are in-world observable effects of rules concepts, but there are no rules concepts, no game mechanics, that observable by the character.

In this case, it's a pretty short train of thought to realize it would result in utter nonsense for the game to ban the use of it's own mechanical language.

Nah. It squares with the concept of meta-gaming. Unless you are breaking the Fourth Wall, you have two distinct sets of perspectives at the table: you, as the player, who is watching the events unfold from a (nearly) omniscient third-person perspective; and your character's perspective, who is experiencing the events as they play out, first-hand (and with limited knowledge).

It makes perfect sense, then, for a mechanic dealing with what the character knows or is able to observe to "ban the use of [the game's] own mechanical language" since the character is ignorant of the game's mechanical language. Ready is one of those mechanics and it instructs the player to define a trigger that is limited to only that which the character can perceive.

"I Ready to __ after they end their Stride"

"No, that's not allowed, you said Stride, that's a game mechanic."

I get it, you're attempting reductio ad absurdum.

That example is, technically, correct. However, at least around the tables I play with, it would be acceptable shorthand for...

"I Ready to ___ after they stop moving?"

"Just because they are not moving between squares, doesn't mean they are standing still like a statue, Player. What's your trigger?"

Is just that, absurdist. "Uhhhh. They're waving their hands so they are ... technically ... still moving," is an absolute b$%!@ response and you know it. If that's how you and your tables play, I feel sorry for you. Truly. But I highly doubt that there are many GMs that are that absurd.

It seems this needs spelling out directly:

there is no ban on "using game mechanics" inside that text. I'm serious, read it again.

Quote:

The Ready activity lets the acting person choose the trigger for their readied action. However, you might sometimes need to put limits on what they can choose. Notably, the trigger must be something that happens in the game world and is observable by the character, rather than a rules concept that doesn’t exist in-world. For instance, if a player says, “I Ready to shoot an arrow at her if she uses a concentrate action” or “I Ready to attack him if he has fewer than forty-seven Hit Points,” find out what their character is trying to specifically observe. If they don’t have a clear answer for that, [then] they need to adjust their action.

Uhm. Try reading this sentence again, quite a few times (emphasis added): "Notably, the trigger must be something that happens in the game world and is observable by the character, rather than a rules concept that doesn’t exist in-world."

This entire sentence is, emphatically, a "ban on 'using game mechanics' inside that text." The must-be/rather-than construction establishes a requirement ("must be") and an exclusion, or "ban" if you will ("rather than").

Now, if you can narratively describe an in-the-game-world, observable event or state created by a game mechanic (i.e. "rules concept that doesn't exist in-world") then you can use that to define your trigger.

Disarming Interception[reaction] wrote:

Trigger An enemy within your reach targets you or an ally with a weapon Strike

In order for Reactions like this one to be valid, it has to be base normal for triggers to hit "pause" at moments that are part way through attack Actions/Activities. After the commitment, but before the hit (roll). . .

False. In order for Reactions like that one to be valid, the description of the mechanics for those reaction says they are. That is what makes them valid, not any searching for a "base normal" they must conform to. They are Specific rules that override any General rule you're attempting to back into.

Rolling 5 checks does not mean they are separate swings. . .

No, but the last sentence -- "Each attack counts toward your multiple attack penalty, but don’t increase your penalty until you have made all your attacks" -- kinda does since "each attack" counts.

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Does the Soulforger give you a fully loaded weapon though?

Given that both examples of provided ammo (in a quiver or floating) come unloaded, I'd say no. . .

The examples are just descriptive for the "You can choose the way it appears" text. And while the examples are quite obviously not loaded (in a quiver or floating in the air), they are examples and, as such, are not exclusive. No language precludes bonding a loaded weapon, manifesting it loaded and having extra ammo appearing however you choose for reloading.

Our table's reading of Soulforger would allow it, which is why I described it. However, none of our table would ever do this. The, minimum, three actions (total) to keep up means that either you're doing almost nothing but juggling manifestations and spraying or you're only getting one spray a combat because the situation requires moving, recall knowledge, or other actions. While interesting, it is ultimately a sub-par trick.

/shrug YMMV

I think everyone is overly hyped on Exemplar when a cleaner solution exists: Soulforger Archetype

Manifest Soulforged Armament [one-action] (concentrate, conjuration, divine, extradimensional) Requirements If summoning a weapon or shield, you have the hands free to wield it; if summoning armor, you aren't wearing any armor; Effect You immediately wield or wear the soulforged armament bound to you. The soulforged armament remains manifested until you Dismiss this effect.

Ammunition

If a soulforged weapon requires ammunition, that ammunition appears with the weapon when you Manifest it. You can choose the way it appears, such as in a magical quiver that appears on your body, or simply floating in the air where you can pluck it to load or shoot your weapon. The form doesn't change how many or what type of actions reloading takes or any other functions of the ammunition. If you want anything other than basic ammunition for your weapon (such as a sleep arrow), you must attain and carry that ammunition separately.

Until Soul Arsenal at level 6, it's not quite as good on the action economy as the hypothesized Shadow Sheath exploit since dismissing a soulforged item is a single action. Free-action Drop doesn't work; it just drops the weapon and does not demanifest it back to the extradimensional storage.

Start battle with your loaded, soulforged Crescent Cross manifested.

. . . the white spindle is worthless.

I agree that the healing is subpar, but it was so on-theme for my Automaton hunter with a Aeon Wyrd familiar. His familiar was his "drone" and with the White Spindle slotted, it doubled as his repair droid.

Make it a Runtboss Hobgoblin that summons goblin spirits for bonus points.

For using Dual-Handed Assault, the main reason it's a flourish is, to me, pretty clearly because it's a single action for a strike that's pretty much objectively stronger than what you would be doing without the feat...

More specifically, Dual-Handed Assault is a Flourish because it is action compression. It is a single action to (1) interact to regrip the weapon, (2) action to strike, and (3) free action to release the weapon; and it gives a damage boost that you don't normally get from two-handing a one-handed weapon.

Normally, to move from one-handed to two-handed, you must spend 1 action to Interact to adjust your grip / regrip. Dual-Handed Assault gives you the benefit of two-handing the weapon without the added action cost to regrip.

Ryangwy wrote:

I should point out we've had this conversation before - the fighter can do many of these, you just dislike they're in stances or bespoke actions (because you want to combine a bunch of feat-based benefits in a single attack, something PF2e design is against in general).

I shouldn't be restricted to a stance, a press and/or a flourish to use abilities that I was able to use normally in P1E.

There's your problem. One of the first things our game group discovered when we migrated from 1e to 2e is that you simply cannot approach 2e like 1e. It is a completely different game system. Ignore everything you ever knew about 1e mechanics, strategies, and tactics and approach 2e as though you are learning/playing a brand new system.

The Giant Wasp animal companion is an Advanced Companion and Level 14.

The Monster Core Giant Wasp stats include:

Damage 1d12+4 piercing plus giant wasp venom

Giant Wasp Venom (incapacitation, poison) Saving Throw DC 19 Fortitude; Maximum Duration 6 rounds; Stage 1 no effect (1 round); Stage 2 clumsy 2 (1 round); Stage 3 paralyzed (1 round)

I would guess the companion should deliver Giant Wasp Venom.

Now that is a great point, if you inflict sickened before the creature swallows someone, it can't use swallow whole.

What are good ways to cause sickened?

Skunk Bomb.

This doesn't help in your current situation, but my table has taken to quickly Sickening any creature that is large enough to Swallow Whole or they dole out and consume Pucker Pickles.

... With item levels being relevant, players can't access stuff significantly above their level, so extra wealth isn't as problematic as it could have been in PF1 ...

Item levels are only really relevant for crafting of them. Otherwise, their availability is entirely in the hands of the GM.

Item Level (with emphasis):

Each item has an item level, which represents the item’s complexity and any magic used in its construction. Simpler items with a lower level are easier to construct, and you can’t Craft items that have a higher level than your own (page 236). If an item’s level isn’t listed, its level is 0. While characters can use items of any level, GMs should keep in mind that allowing characters access to items far above their current level may have a negative impact on the game.

Completely off topic...

Smurf it!

Heh. hehe. heheheheee.

yellowpete wrote:

In the original question, I don't get the distinction being made. Dirty Trick also is an attack just like Trip. So neither should be possible to Ready in that scenario

Why not? Ready doesn't say it takes on the traits of the readied action. So "[1a finisher], 2a Ready" is not taking an attack action in your turn after the finisher action...

You prepare to use an action that will occur outside your turn. Choose a single action or free action you can use, and designate a trigger. Your turn then ends. If the trigger you designated occurs before the start of your next turn, you can use the chosen action as a reaction (provided you still meet the requirements to use it). You can't Ready a free action that already has a trigger.

If you have a multiple attack penalty and your readied action is an attack action, your readied attack takes the multiple attack penalty you had at the time you used Ready. This is one of the few times the multiple attack penalty applies when it's not your turn.

There are two ways to read that phrase with that sentence.

1. Choose a single action or free action your character knows how to perform.

2. Choose a single action or free action that is valid for your character to perform at this moment.

If someone is reading as per #1, then there is no conflict. Attack actions made as the reaction defined by the trigger are not restricted by either the Finisher or Flourish Traits of actions used before readying.

If someone is reading per #2, however, using a Finisher on the first action would prevent readying any action or one-action activity that has anything that includes the Attack trait. Similarly, using a Flourish on the first action would prevent readying anything with the Flourish trait.

While mounted with nimble reprisal some interesting things happen. normally you can reach the 24 squares around you with a 5'' step from nimble reprisal but now that your striking from any of the mounts squares you can reach 32 squares.

Uhm. With context clues, I am guessing you are referring to a melee Champion taking a Step as part of Nimble Reprisal. As such, none of the GMs in my circle would allow a Step while Mounted:

Another problem that I can point about giant whirlwind barbarian is that they compete with casters for AoE space. When we have a sorcerer was common that the giant barbarian player preventing the caster to use AoE effects. . .

Heh. The Sorcerer's answer at our table was, "Here's a Backfire Mantle and two healing potions."

2. Can a PC under the effect of disappearance do anything to make themselves easier for their allies to find? Does it have to involve interacting with physical material? Can they even really communicate with their allies at all anymore?

When our table had someone using Disappearance, we got creative and made sure to cast Telepathic Bond and heightened Status. So, communication (telepathy) and location (known direction and distance to) were covered as neither of these rely on senses.

Like a Magus needs INT.

That is debatable. I'm playing a remastered Magus in Gatewalkers and find myself doing just fine with the more limited number of Attack Roll spells. Ukang ignores Int for Str (for Athletics to Trip) and Dex as a Twisting Tree Magus. He only Spellstrikes with attack spells and, otherwise, only casts utility spells. His Spell Attack and Spell DC are irrelevant.

. . .

Music changes everything.

GMCore is full of passages and paragraphs on how to fit a rule or mechanic into a square hole...

Everything goes in the square hole.

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.

And when you Aid an attack, what is supposed to be the preparation? You think: I gonna Aid this attack! How is that supposed to even take an action.

Monica the Monk decides to Aid, with a shoulder-check to the BBEG, Barbara the Barbarian's Strike at the end of a Sudden Charge.

GM: What are you doing as a prep action?
Monica the Monk: "Oh! I pause to wait for the right moment to check the BBEG."

Locpicking: "I take out my own picks and get in position..."

Surgery: "I scan the instruments, noting their layout, to more efficiently pick the right one when asked."

Envisioning error detected. Name collision: 'Versatile Vial'.

Versatile Vial (1): An item created during daily preparations that remains potent until the next daily preparations.
Versatile Vial (2): An item created via Quick Alchemy that remains potent only until the end of the character's current turn.
Versatile Vial (3): A bomb item that can be used for Strike attacks.

First, strike #3. That is a function of #2. Second, what we've taken to doing at our table to clean everything up is to rename #2 to "Field Vial."

So then, Versatile Vials are vials that an Alchemist prepares each day. These vials can be used with Quick Alchemy to create any known, consumable Alchemical item on the fly. Used Versatile Vials replenish at a base rate of two every ten minutes.

Field Vials are created by Quick Alchemy, do not consume Verstatile Vials, and have very limited application as defined by each field. By default, one application is that they can be thrown as a small bomb.

Thinking of Versatile Vials as Alchemist focus points while Field Vials are Alchemist cantrips, we find, helps conceptualize their applicability.

Pixel Popper wrote:

Errenor wrote:

I absolutely will block both diagonal movements... In the second case there's absolutely no difference between diagonal and linear, side to side arrangement of creatures in fiction...

There is absolutely a difference between diagonal and linear on PF2E battle maps. The rules for Diagonal Movement spell it out, "Because moving diagonally covers more ground, you count that movement differently." If there was no difference then there would be no difference in diagonal movement.

Taken out of context. So irrelevant.

Refusing to acknowledge the game rules for counting diagonals, so sophistic.

As for "more ground" - yes. Not a problem though unless somehow used as an exploit. Otherwise a 'diagonal' formation is still a continuous formation you still can't get through. Because it's 'diagonal' only on a square grid, not in fictional reality...

The square grid is what we have to work with for the battle map. You can't just handwave it away because it does fit your idea of fictional reality. And even your fictional reality is incorrect.

The linear arrangement is two dudes side-by-side spanning a 10-foot width. The diagonal arrangement is, two dudes, in a staggered formation with one 5 feet to the back and side of the other. Now, if they both turn 45 degrees to the right, without changing their center points, they are shoulder-to-shoulder spanning a distance of approximately 14.5 feet. PF2E simplifies that to 15 feet on the square battle map.

The diagonal formation may be a continuous formation, but it is more spread out, meaning there is a larger gap which the movement rules allow movement through since it can be accomplished without entering an enemy's square.

... The GM is told to set the DC ...

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.

GM Core gives guidance on Adjusting 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.

And not seeing the comparison with Ready which is the only other ability in the whole game I can think of that also has both an action and a reaction cost is crazy to me.

Not seeing and acknowledging the clear contrasts with Ready is crazy to me.

Not acknowledging that Aid is its own mechanic with its own rules that are different and distinct from the separate Ready mechanic with its rules is crazy to me.

You apparently only accept the evidence that supports your bias, and invent further evidence conflating Ready with Aid to support your bias, while blithely ignoring every evidence to the contrary. That's crazy, man!

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?

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.

I absolutely will block both diagonal movements... In the second case there's absolutely no difference between diagonal and linear, side to side arrangement of creatures in fiction...

There is absolutely a difference between diagonal and linear on PF2E battle maps. The rules for Diagonal Movement spell it out, "Because moving diagonally covers more ground, you count that movement differently." If there was no difference then there would be no difference in diagonal movement.

Extrapolating from the Diagonal Movement rules, the linear configuration is 10 feet wide while the diagonal configuration is 15 feet wide. The diagonally arranged creatures are "cover[ing] more ground."

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 Aid rules to apply MAP here.

I personally wouldn't allow deception to aid an attack, as the general rule is you use the same skill to aid as the person is using...

No, that is not the general rule. Please see my preceding post.

You would allow a deception roll to add to an ally's + to hit with a strike?

Absolutely. As long as it is narratively appropriate, why not?

I typically require a like action, like deception can be used to aid feint or create a diversion.

Why? There's nothing in the Aid rules that require a like action. I'd let the Bard roll Performance to "draw attention" to himself to aid Create a Diversion in a heartbeat.

All that the Aid rules really require is that the preparation be specific and relevant and that the character be in a proper position. Nothing in the Aid rules nor the Aid reaction require that the Aid roll be a like action.

Quote:

The closest rule to Aid is Ready which applies MAP.

There is no need to use any "closest rule" proxy to determine how Aid works, because Aid has it's own rules.

Quoted b/c it bears repeating.

Pixel Popper wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

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.

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 ally's strike is easier to land. Thus, mechanically, my ally gains a +1 circumstance bonus to his attack.

Were talking about using the attack form of aid such that the GM has decided it should have the attack trait.

You asked for "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 gave you an example. You did not specify that you wanted an example that the GM might grant the preparatory action or Aid reaction the Attack trait.

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 Diversion's 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. A Readied attack action against an enemy has no direct, mechanical effect on an ally.

Regardless of what the Aid action is describing it does to the enemy, it has no direct, mechanical effect on the enemy. The direct, mechanical effect is on the ally.

That is a huge distinction.

Pixel Popper wrote:

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.

That's why I use this rule, because I feel an intent that Aid should work like Ready.

Key words: "I feel."

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.

Easl wrote:

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.

Aid looks exactly like Ready: ...

No, it doesn't. If it did, there'd be no reason to separate them.

Aid:

And there's an RAI logic to it: It follows the rules for Ready.

Aid != Ready

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 Details

Long Tasks: For a task that takes longer than a round, you often need to spend more than one action preparing to help, as determined by the GM.

As the GM, I would certainly require the preparation every round. The prep action for the Aid reaction is a trade-off. You are sacrificing an action to literally grant yourself a unique reaction. I would not allow one prep to grant 1+X reactions.

Now, I might be convinced to allow a character to spend an entire round setting up three rounds of Aid reactions, but not for the example of Aiding the Fighter hacking an enemy. That gets into the next salient part of the Aid Details...

Repetition: Aiding the same creature multiple times can have diminishing returns. In particular, if you try to repeatedly Aid attacks or skill checks against a creature, the GM will usually increase the DC each time as your foe gets more savvy. This isn't the case if there's no reason the task would be less likely to work if repeated, such as Aiding someone who's climbing a wall or picking a lock.

Wait, you don't eat soap?

You misspelled cilantro.

I think the phrasing of "Select three ikons from the list on pages 43–47," with the list being a menu of single options, indicates that the intent, at least, is clearly three different ikons.

It's like when you answer an online survey that says select three of the fifteen options that best answer the question. There's only one of, and only one check-box for, each option. You simply cannot select one option multiple times.

Or, like a used car dealership offering you a deal. There are twenty-five cars on the lot, all different makes and models, and you can choose three. It is simply not possible to choose two, or more, of the same make and model because none are duplicated.

Now, the problem with the phrasing, a la the used car lot scenario if the dealership has five units of each of the twenty-five makes and models, you may then select three units of the same make and model.

While I believe the intent is clear, the verbiage is not. Lacking any sort of "you may pick one ikon multiple times" or "you must select a different ikon each time" or, simply, "[s]elect three different ikons from the list..." language, it is ambiguous. Therefore, expect table variation.

I think I found my answer: you can't Take 20 on a Flat check because it represents chance, not skill or technique.

Flat Checks replaced percentiles. Instead of rolling percentile for, say, a 50% chance at something, Paizo leaned into d20 and created Flat Check 11 for 50%.

For skill checks, PF2E replaced taking 20 with Assurance

My poor, poor conrasu avenger of Monad, charged with destroying unnatural imbalances in the world, yet forced to use his fists to use his abilities, and therefore wholly unable to harm those abominations he seeks to destroy without first taking a -2 to attack.

Just deal non-lethal 'til the beastie is unconscious, then take the -2 when their AC is -6 (prone: -2 circumstance penalty; unconscious: -4 status penalty).

Stop feeding the troll.

AoN agrees with the physical War of Immortals book: no attack trait. I don't see anything in the errata, either.

So I don't know where Demiplane is getting that from. Right now based on the first party sources available, AoN is right and Demiplane is wrong.

Interesting bit of information! Thanks for that!