|
This is a general playtest observation of Aid Another, which relates to SRD and 3.5 more than pathfinder.
One of the things that is the problem with Aid Another is the fact the effects are minimal, the DC doesn’t scale, and it slows down game play. And if someone fails their DC 10 check, there is no penalty, further rendering the need for a dice roll an annoyance rather than a game-building rule.
Whether the roll is to aid another in a skill, or to aid another in combat, the DC is 10, which means the odds of making the roll are almost guaranteed, meaning the roll only slows down the game. The second part is that the effect is minimal – at 1st level, a +2 to a skill or to hit is huge, but by 10th level this ruleset is discarded as useless.
I propose the following improvement to the SRD ruleset. If a character chooses to aid another, and it is a valid skill or circumstance to allow more than one person to aid, it adds half its ranks (minimum +1) as a stackable bonus to the skill user. That way, when the party’s diplomat decides to persuade the gate guard to let them by, the two other party members with ranks in Diplomacy aiding his Diplomacy check are useful, and there is no roll to slow things down.
Further, I would pass this mechanic to aiding in combat. If someone wants to aid another, they can grant half their BAB (minimum +1) to an ally’s attack roll or AC. Again, no annoying roll, and the effect scales to be useful through all levels of the game.
|
If a character chooses to aid another, and it is a valid skill or circumstance to allow more than one person to aid, it adds half its ranks (minimum +1) as a stackable bonus to the skill user. That way, when the party’s diplomat decides to persuade the gate guard to let them by, the two other party members with ranks in Diplomacy aiding his Diplomacy check are useful, and there is no roll to slow things down.
Neat.
Further, I would pass this mechanic to aiding in combat. If someone wants to aid another, they can grant half their BAB (minimum +1) to an ally’s attack roll or AC. Again, no annoying roll, and the effect scales to be useful through all levels of the game.
Not so sure. I get the mechanic, but why should this work? Can you give a narrative example of how this would play out.
I don't know, I think it works pretty well as it stands. Its simple and easy to remember off hand, and honestly, even if it doesn't seem like it does a lot (although +2 tends to be a big deal from time to time), multiple characters can aid in a lot of situations, meaning that this can climb to +4, +6, etc.
I guess I'm just not seeing a big reason to tinker with this.
I think that half skills is too much - no matter how high the skills go, you're still rolling a d20. That means that the 'range' is pretty limited, and half skill ranks is far too swingy.
The house rule I swiped from another DM is:
* a 15 aid another gets a +2 bonus
* a 25 aid another gets a +3 bonus
* a 35 aid another gets a +4 bonus
etc.
I could see boosting it to +2/+4/+6, but no higher.
I also generally let players collaborating on skills pick the 'primary' after the dice are rolled, so you don't have a 35 aiding a 15.
And, while I'm talking house rules, I do try to limit the number of players who can effectively aid another on most skills. Too many cooks, and all that.
In complete adventurer, there is a good rule about that which I use.
If you have 5 ranks, or a +5 bab, you can give a +3 bonus with a DC20 check, +4 with a DC 30 check, and so on.
Works well.
In complete adventurer, there is a good rule about that which I use.
If you have 5 ranks, or a +5 bab, you can give a +3 bonus with a DC20 check, +4 with a DC 30 check, and so on.
Works well.
I think removing the dice roll is a good idea, as it's pretty much a gimme most of the time.
I also like the scaling: +2 normally, +3 for 5 ranks, +4 for 10 ranks, +5 for 15 ranks and +6 for 20 ranks. Same would apply for BAB.
|
I think that half skills is too much - no matter how high the skills go, you're still rolling a d20. That means that the 'range' is pretty limited, and half skill ranks is far too swingy.
The house rule I swiped from another DM is:
* a 15 aid another gets a +2 bonus
* a 25 aid another gets a +3 bonus
* a 35 aid another gets a +4 bonus
etc.I could see boosting it to +2/+4/+6, but no higher.
Half skills is indeed too much.
I like this idea tergiver - I am requesting that I may yoink this and try it out for my own purposes.
Robert
|
|
In complete adventurer, there is a good rule about that which I use.
If you have 5 ranks, or a +5 bab, you can give a +3 bonus with a DC20 check, +4 with a DC 30 check, and so on.
Works well.
I think removing the dice roll is a good idea, as it's pretty much a gimme most of the time.
I also like the scaling: +2 normally, +3 for 5 ranks, +4 for 10 ranks, +5 for 15 ranks and +6 for 20 ranks. Same would apply for BAB.
Here's how I feel:
Removing the Dice Roll is a step in the right direction. We have been doing this for quite some time.
Our house rule is "You automatically can attempt to aid IF you are trained in the skill" It eliminates a pesky and unimportant dice roll (in agreement with the OP that it's not a big enough difference to waste the time on the roll - so auto success if you have 1 rank).
However, I would consider keeping the roll as a good idea if the idea that a check with a larger result for the aid actually adds MORE to the check.
Robert
I'm a big proponent of Scaling bonuses, but this seems a little overpowered.
Can I suggest that each additional helper increases the automatic failure number by 1? Then a large group can do incredible things but the chance of them stepping on each other's toes goes up correspondingly.
There's no automatic failure with a natural 1 (or automatic success with a natural 20) with skill checks.
I think the system works fine as is. Couple it with taking 10, and it works pretty well.
|
There's no automatic failure with a natural 1 (or automatic success with a natural 20) with skill checks.
I think the system works fine as is. Couple it with taking 10, and it works pretty well.
PPPBT Thanks
I hadn't bought a D&D Book since 3.0 came out, and until someone proved to me the math made it possible to have a pathfinder character that didn't suck at 1st level, I had no interest in D&D except making sure that my homebrew didn't have the same problems.