Can you aid another if you can't hit the DC?


Rules Questions


5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

In a thread in General, someone suggested that you Aid Another on a check if you could not hit the main DC of the check. At first, my reaction was "that can't be right", but it looks like it might be.

Which unfortunately makes aid another unusable just when you need it most (when even the best person in the group only has a mediocre bonus and you really need to make the check to keep a scenario on track). It also adds playability concerns as the GM has to go round the table and check whether successful aids count or not based on what DC they could have hit.

So, did we miss something, or is Aid Another really broken?

_
glass.


Aid another is always a DC of 10. No matter what. If you can have sufficient skill in something to be able to make the check you should just be rolling for it to.


It's really up to your GM; the text for Aid Another only specifies that you must roll 10 or higher on the check, that you must be allowed to attempt the check, and that you can not Take 10.

However, it also specifies that a GM may impose further restrictions on a case-by-case basis.

By my reading of the rules it doesn't seem to be intended that you must be able to reach the DC of the original check to Aid Another, but ruling that could be a reasonable house rule and make a certain amount of sense.


I chased down the specific post in the linked topic, and they're trying to apply a specific rule to the general case; for most Aid Another checks you only need to roll 10 or higher, but in some specific cases such as disable device checks there will be additional requirements.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, my understanding of aid another is that, without it, Stonehenge could never have been built. The idea that four men together (or forty men together) can lift what one alone could not does not strike me as a particularly challenging idea.

It also doesn't strike me as a particularly challenging idea that an apprentice can still aid the master by simply handing him the correct tool at the correct time (like a surgical nurse in one of those medical shows), even if the apprentice couldn't do the task himself. (If that's not the case, why is the surgical nurse even in the room?)

However, those are both arguments based on common sense and an understanding of reality. If your game master lacks both, then the rules could be read in several ways.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I happen to think there's an error in the Aid Another text. I would actually be hugely surprised if the bit about using Disable Device to open locks wasn't meant to say:

Quote:
In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to disarm a magic trap using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.

I think this because the disable device skill actually has a restriction about who can attempt to disarm a magic trap, but nothing about who can try to open a lock.

If I'm right, this is a really simple rule to understand, with minimum fuss and interpretation required. If not you get threads like this one.

Oh, I also think the word "achieve" should be "attempt".

But, by the rules, it's ambiguous. As a player, I think I would argue "the skill isn't restricting me from achieving the result needed, my bonus is, so I can still make the roll to aid" if a GM wanted to get picky (at which point I'd accept their response). As a GM, I'm going to stick with "if you are allowed to make a skill check, you can attempt to aid another".


Chemlak wrote:

I happen to think there's an error in the Aid Another text. I would actually be hugely surprised if the bit about using Disable Device to open locks wasn't meant to say:

Quote:
In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to disarm a magic trap using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.
I think this because the disable device skill actually has a restriction about who can attempt to disarm a magic trap, but nothing about who can try to open a lock.

Actually, it has a restriction about who can try to open a lock, too. "Trained only."

I can put Boris the Strong and Fair into one of those Chinese finger traps and the BSF can't get out except by force main, since he can't make the DC 0 Disable Device check.

(Hmmm, the ilithid thinks in its cunning fiend's brain.... what if I made one of those out of adamantine?.....)

Grand Lodge

Another example, if a character has a skill with +9, and rolls an 19 for a total of 28, the GM might not allow a character with a +2 on the skill to aid another to push up the first character's score to a 30. The reasoning is that it the second character can help, but not push the score up further than the second character's max(I.e., rolling a 20 on the skill check).

In this case it would top out at 29.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I believe that RAI is the aider must be able to make an attempt at whatever task he's aiding (can't use certain skills untrained, for example), rather than must be capable of success at that attempt. Partly because a character wouldn't necessarily know the DCs of all tasks, and partly because if you have a long enough pry-bar, a bunch of weaklings can move a rock that none of them individually could budge.


SlimGauge wrote:
I believe that RAI is the aider must be able to make an attempt at whatever task he's aiding (can't use certain skills untrained, for example), rather than must be capable of success at that attempt.

I absolutely agree that that is almost certainly what they intended. Unfortunately, AFAICT it is not what they wrote. I was hoping someone would point out some piece of evidence that I had missed, but this thread has plenty of assertions but none of that.

And I run PFS, so I have to be guided by what the rules actually say, not what I would like them to say or think they were meant to say.

_
glass.


Aid Another wrote:

You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you're helping gets a +2 bonus on his or her check. (You can't take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character's help won't be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once.

In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.

I think this should fall more under GM fiat as opposed to "Can this character literally hit the DC by himself". If you want to get nitpicky, go into the numbers and do that math for taking 20 with every circumstantial bonus you can get your hands on (masterwork tools, guidance, etc.). I feel as if you shouldn't be able to aid in skills that you are untrained in or that you logically couldn't help with. Should definitely be left up to GM fiat.


In the other thread Orfamy said:

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Read further down.
CRB, pg. 86 wrote:
In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can’t aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn’t achieve alone.
I think you missed the italicized bit.

I did indeed miss the italicised bit, thank you. That is exactly the sort of evidence I was hoping someone could find. Not sure why you did not post that in this thread, rather going on about stone henge and common sense.

_
glass.


Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thanks, I had read right past that.

I think it made more sense the other way. It isn't like you can get a job as a sous chef at a fancy restaurant after working the grill at a McDonald's for a summer.

Grand Lodge

I agree with the notion that this is a semantic issue, not a numerical one. If the designers had intended for aid another to require a similar numerical bonus to the skill check, they would have just said so.

Instead, I think the intent is for aid another to always be possible for any character who could possibly attempt the skill, meaning they need ranks in it if it's trained only, and must have similar benefits granted by classes and feats for skills that have special requirements, such as disarming magical traps.

Shadow Lodge

BretI wrote:
I think it made more sense the other way. It isn't like you can get a job as a sous chef at a fancy restaurant after working the grill at a McDonald's for a summer.

Well, that's for three reasons:

1) Working a grill at McDonald's is not going to grant you a rank in profession (cook), and since it is a trained-only skill you must have at least one rank in that skill in order to assist.

2) A sous chef isn't a simple assistant, they're the chef's second-in-command, and may be required to fill in for the executive chef if the former is unavailable. This means a sous chef will at least occasionally be making their own skill checks rather than merely performing aid another.

3) There are enough people with extensive culinary education and restaurant experience competing for such positions that establishments don't have to hire people of lesser skill even if (1) and (2) were not a factor.

(I do like the house rule of allowing superior assistance with aid another on higher secondary checks, such as +3 at DC 20, +4 at DC 30, etc as this reflects the value of a superior assistant.)

Liberty's Edge

The phrase is decidedly unclear.
Only a character that is capable to complete the task if he roll a 20 can help?
or
When the skill is a "trained only" skill you should have trained it to help?


Diego Rossi wrote:

The phrase is decidedly unclear.

Only a character that is capable to complete the task if he roll a 20 can help?
or
When the skill is a "trained only" skill you should have trained it to help?

That it specifically says "In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results", I think that strongly implies the latter. And of course other cases where you couldn't succeed - disarming magic traps, identifying magic items without detect magic, etc, etc.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you aid another if you can't hit the DC? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.