| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think limiting the amount of help is better than imposing a penalty. As a DM I need someway on how the players are aiding. Usually very easy with social checks. I would generally disagree with this because it gives everyone a chance to participate.
I feel it adversarial DMing to look to interpret the rules in a way you do not feel is correct to make the game harder. If you honestly feel that are how the rules are, great! Run them that way until if ever you find differently.
Allowing unlimited Aiding gives a huge boost to seven player tables and the DCs should be higher than a four player game. But I rarely see that in the modules.
Since season PFS scenarios have been written to be balanced for 6 player tables. So the DC's are set to be higher than a four player table.
Many times if the social encounter is important to the story and progress the 4-player adjustment for the scenario will reduce the DC's.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
keep in mind that you don't know WHY someone is just tossing their +2 in there. It could be disinterest, or they could be trying to not be rude and interrupt the actual role playing going on but still want to contribute to the groups success.
But to the OP, yeah, I've seen this sort of PFS aid-another stuff. It's the players that don't want to role-play, they are just playing a board game.
That's true. It could be the player can't think of anything to say in-character too. I've had that problem a few times.
|
Adding in a circumstance penalty is perfectly acceptable. Deciding that circumstance happens if aiding fails by 5 or more is not adding a rule. It's using the rule that allows a GM to add a bonus or penalty based on the circumstances.
That being said, aid another is not the role itself, and should not be held to the same standards, except that you cannot aid if you could not make the role on your own.
Many times if the social encounter is important to the story and progress the 4-player adjustment for the scenario will reduce the DC's.
by 2, not usually by 4. With 6 players you're both more likely to have a dedicated diplomancer AND 2 people to aid. With unlimited aiding you're looking at least a +6 even if you're snowwhite and the 7 dwarves.
so... the actual difference we are looking at is what? about a +1 per extra player? so the difference between a 4 player table and a 6 player table is about +2... or am I missing something here?
+2 and increased odds of having a dedicated diplomancer, assuming you don't pick up a few people that are reasonably good at diplomacy.
|
2) Someone with a +5 diplomacy should be more useful than someone with a -2 in, even in a group with a +8 diplomacy. It encourages skills somewhere in between nose picker and diplomancer
I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make with this one. They are more useful. Someone with a +5 will only fail to aid 20% of the time. While someone with a -2 will fail to aid 55% of the time. 80% success vs 45% success seems more useful to me..
2) Someone with a +5 diplomacy should be more useful than someone with a -2 in, even in a group with a +8 diplomacy. It encourages skills somewhere in between nose picker and diplomancerI'm not sure of the point you're trying to make with this one. They are more useful. Someone with a +5 will only fail to aid 20% of the time. While someone with a -2 will fail to aid 55% of the time. 80% success vs 45% success seems more useful to me..
It's not nearly enough difference.
80% of +2 is 1.6
45% of +2 .9
7 points of diplomacy should translate into more than a .7 bonus to the roll.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's been discussed, but I personally think it really comes down to this:
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.
So let's dissect this. You find a DC 25 lock and have to open the door to get through. The rogue can only open it if they have at least a +5 disable device. Their buddy the wannabe rogue can only assist if they too have a +5 to disable device. This example is explicit in the rules.
So let's extrapolate to the diplomacy scenario. You have a guard that you have to talk to to make it through a door. The text reads "A DC 25 diplomacy check is required to get the guard to do the truffle shuffle." Using the exact same qualifiers above, anybody without at least a +5 to diplomacy will be unable "achieve certain results" and thus cannot assist on the aid.
To me that's pretty damn straightforward, and it's something a lot of players and GMs forget.
Alternatively, I can see the discussion point on a regular diplomacy check, but even then, somebody with a -2 to diplomacy can only ever obtain an 18. Against a 12 CHA opponent, an 18 can only attempt an aid if somebody is "indifferent (15 + creature's Cha modifier) or more friendly. I get that one's a bit more gray, but in my opinion the previous clear rule still applies and I would not permit them to assist in aiding that check.
And this is before we even begin to discuss the line:
The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.
|
|
2) Someone with a +5 diplomacy should be more useful than someone with a -2 in, even in a group with a +8 diplomacy. It encourages skills somewhere in between nose picker and diplomancerI'm not sure of the point you're trying to make with this one. They are more useful. Someone with a +5 will only fail to aid 20% of the time. While someone with a -2 will fail to aid 55% of the time. 80% success vs 45% success seems more useful to me..It's not nearly enough difference.
80% of +2 is 1.6
45% of +2 .97 points of diplomacy should translate into more than a .7 bonus to the roll.
When you're limiting yourself to a +2 because you're aiding it certainly shouldn't.
If I have a +30 and you have a +25, are you going to complain that you're only adding +2 if you decide to aid? If you decide to aid are you going to complain that your +25 is no more helpful than someone else's +9?
If I have a +30 and you have a +25, are you going to complain that you're only adding +2 if you decide to aid? If you decide to aid are you going to complain that your +25 is no more helpful than someone else's +9?
Complain about the inadequacies of the system? certainly (i think i have made more than a few rants on that in the lamplighter threads, about the uselessness of being a bowling ball)
DO anything about it? No. Because the rules are pretty rock solid on what aiding another does.
But there are both rules and rational arguments for stumpy grumpy and stabby's aid another diplomacy checks of -1 for tossing in a penalty.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to encourage player engagement with the game. So, I'll allow the player to roll a risk free aid to diplomacy as long as he tells me what his character is doing to aid the diplomacy and as long as what he is doing is vaguely rational (doesn't have to be brilliant, just rationale).
Not necessarily realistic (lots of people talking probably hurts) but seems more enjoyable to me.
"Thax no good at talking. But me give merchant puppy dog eyes."
rolls an 8Merchant: "Why is your barbarian looking constipated?"
"Thax no good at talking. But me give merchant puppy dog eyes."
rolls an 8
Merchant: "Why is your barbarian looking constipated?"
Anecdotal: In a recent scenario a INT-dumped bloodrager was really role-playing the 'being dumb as a sack of bricks' and not trusting anything that was offered to the party which was IMMEASURABLY helpful in at least two circumstances dealing with paranoid groups of people.
And in two others, really brought out his Intimidation checks.
|
I know it's been discussed, but I personally think it really comes down to this:
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.So let's dissect this. You find a DC 25 lock and have to open the door to get through. The rogue can only open it if they have at least a +5 disable device. Their buddy the wannabe rogue can only assist if they too have a +5 to disable device. This example is explicit in the rules.
So let's extrapolate to the diplomacy scenario. You have a guard that you have to talk to to make it through a door. The text reads "A DC 25 diplomacy check is required to get the guard to do the truffle shuffle." Using the exact same qualifiers above, anybody without at least a +5 to diplomacy will be unable "achieve certain results" and thus cannot assist on the aid.
To me that's pretty damn straightforward, and it's something a lot of players and GMs forget.
Alternatively, I can see the discussion point on a regular diplomacy check, but even then, somebody with a -2 to diplomacy can only ever obtain an 18. Against a 12 CHA opponent, an 18 can only attempt an aid if somebody is "indifferent (15 + creature's Cha modifier) or more friendly. I get that one's a bit more gray, but in my opinion the previous clear rule still applies and I would not permit them to assist in aiding that check.
And this is before we even begin to discuss the line:
The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.
I would not put too much weight behind the achieve certain results line, there are certain ways to get higher bonuses on a reroll or after get a bonus after the roll is made.
It would also mean, that the 5 other characters can't help the party barbarian move, since they could not lift that DC 23 strength check table on their own, they there would not be able to help him carry it.
Using circumstance modifiers on what player characters have actually said/contributed/damaged when it comes to diplomacy seems like the better solution, and it keeps people interested ( nothing worse than the whole group going AFK when the +24 diplomacy bard talks for 5 minutes with the NPC) and gives a benefit to not dumping your charisma and investing a couple of points so you can reliably help the group.
Also as has been mentioned before it starts with " 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. " That might just apply to trained only skills, or knowledge checks that are higher than 10. Also it says skill rather than DC...
If a GM wants to say no to aid another, or to the participation of a certain player characters, there is certainly plenty text that would allow him to rule so " In many cases, a character's help won't be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once."
In many cases there will still be great reasons to allow it, but expect table variation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not put too much weight behind the achieve certain results line, there are certain ways to get higher bonuses on a reroll or after get a bonus after the roll is made.
Just because it's an often forgotten rule doesn't make it not a rule, and one that should carry far more weight than it does.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, are people seriously claiming that a –1 Diplomacy PC can't Aid when the DC is 20?
That is not what that passage means.
Player: "I'd like to Aid, GM?"
GM: "I'm sorry, you're too ugly to even attempt it."
No. It means that if you couldn't attempt the roll to begin with, then you can't Aid.
It does not mean that if you couldn't make the DC, you can't Aid.
Those are two entirely different circumstances.
Wait, are people seriously claiming that a –1 Diplomacy PC can't Aid when the DC is 20?
That is not what that passage means.
Player: "I'd like to Aid, GM?"
GM: "I'm sorry, you're too ugly to even attempt it."No. It means that if you couldn't attempt the roll to begin with, then you can't Aid.
It does not mean that if you couldn't make the DC, you can't Aid.
Those are two entirely different circumstances.
That is what I always thought on it as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why on earth would you want to discourage people from engaging in a non-combat scenario? Because that is all that imposing a penalty will ever do. It won't ever change the way that they build characters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why on earth would you want to discourage people from engaging in a non-combat scenario? Because that is all that imposing a penalty will ever do. It won't ever change the way that they build characters.
And, in addition, it WILL drive people away from the game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, are people seriously claiming that a –1 Diplomacy PC can't Aid when the DC is 20?
That is not what that passage means.
Player: "I'd like to Aid, GM?"
GM: "I'm sorry, you're too ugly to even attempt it."No. It means that if you couldn't attempt the roll to begin with, then you can't Aid.
It does not mean that if you couldn't make the DC, you can't Aid.
Those are two entirely different circumstances.
Clearly all the people in the Operating Room clustered around the Brain Surgeon can do that operation - otherwise they couldn't help right?
;)
I think Surgical Assistants are very underpaid.
|
|
I would not put too much weight behind the achieve certain results line, there are certain ways to get higher bonuses on a reroll or after get a bonus after the roll is made.Just because it's an often forgotten rule doesn't make it not a rule, and one that should carry far more weight than it does.
The gist of my argument, which others have stated better than me, is that this line might not say what you assume.
And I really meant, that the words "where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results" are intended to prevent players from using aid another on skill checks that are trained only of have another limitation/requirement.Fortunately, to combat application of aid another does not have the same line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, are people seriously claiming that a –1 Diplomacy PC can't Aid when the DC is 20?
That is not what that passage means.
Player: "I'd like to Aid, GM?"
GM: "I'm sorry, you're too ugly to even attempt it."No. It means that if you couldn't attempt the roll to begin with, then you can't Aid.
It does not mean that if you couldn't make the DC, you can't Aid.
Those are two entirely different circumstances.
I agree with this understanding, but I can see how a Dm would read otherwise.
So I respect anyone how makes this ruling.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. It means that if you couldn't attempt the roll to begin with, then you can't Aid.
It does not mean that if you couldn't make the DC, you can't Aid.
Those are two entirely different circumstances.
Nefreet, with respect, that's not what the language in the rule reads.
The language doesn't read "if you couldn't attempt the roll" it reads, "In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results". If you have a -1 Diplomacy, you cannot achieve the result of influencing a creature that is hostile; literally the skill restricts who can achieve an influence result by who is capable of the DC, just as the skill of open lock restricts those who can achieve an open door result by who is capable of the DC.
Even the skill language is roughly the same; I fail to see where all these special qualifiers for "couldn't make the DC" come from, as they're not located in the skill descriptions themselves either.
When disarming a trap or other device, the Disable Device check is made secretly, so that you don't necessarily know whether you've succeeded.
The DC depends on how tricky the device is. If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you trigger it. If you're attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally.
You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check. The DC of this check depends on the creature's starting attitude toward you, adjusted by its Charisma modifier. If you succeed, the character's attitude toward you is improved by one step. For every 5 by which your check result exceeds the DC, the character's attitude toward you increases by one additional step. A creature's attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way, although the GM can override this rule in some situations. If you fail the check by 4 or less, the character's attitude toward you is unchanged. If you fail by 5 or more, the character's attitude toward you is decreased by one step.
As for trained vs. untrained, the language there reads...
Untrained: This entry indicates what a character without at least 1 rank in the skill can do with it. If this entry doesn't appear, it means that the skill functions normally for untrained characters (if it can be used untrained) or that an untrained character can't attempt checks with this skill (for skills that are designated "Trained Only").
Again, very different language than what is in the aid another description, even though it's in the same section. If the aid another meant to mean "no untrained use" it would say, "you cannot aid if you are untrained".
|
|
No. It means that if you couldn't attempt the roll to begin with, then you can't Aid.
It does not mean that if you couldn't make the DC, you can't Aid.
Those are two entirely different circumstances.
Nefreet, with respect, that's not what the language in the rule reads.
With respect, reading is an interpretive activity.
You're choosing to read it that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the language doesn't read "if you couldn't attempt the roll" it reads, "In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results
you CAN attempt a dc 25 diplomacy check with a -1, you will just fail unless somethine weird happens.
You cannot attempt a disable device roll. Its not that you fail it's that you can't roll at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
keep in mind that you don't know WHY someone is just tossing their +2 in there. It could be disinterest, or they could be trying to not be rude and interrupt the actual role playing going on but still want to contribute to the groups success.
But to the OP, yeah, I've seen this sort of PFS aid-another stuff. It's the players that don't want to role-play, they are just playing a board game.
Fair enough. Let me re-phrase. It's players that aren't going to role play (in this instance), they are just a playing a board game (at this time).
The why doesn't really matter, the issue is that they aren't role playing the aid-another actions, it's just a token roll that every player does because the board says we can. It is definitely metagaming, but this aspect is often ignored in the spirit of encouraging cooperative players.
And I've been guilty of this one too. You have a table with 6 players, and you can't really realistically all have something to say to a given NPC. But players are encouraged to try, and the PFS game encourages cooperation ABOVE role playing.
But players are encouraged to try, and the PFS game encourages cooperation ABOVE role playing.
Sometimes giving someone the space/time/ to do their thing is cooperating.
How low are my standards as a GM if I accept "Yeah, what he said!" as a legitimate RP for aid another on Diplomacy or Bluff?
How low are my standards as a GM if I accept "Yeah, what he said!" as a legitimate RP for aid another on Diplomacy or Bluff?
accepting of practical reality is not a low standard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How low are my standards as a GM if I accept "Yeah, what he said!" as a legitimate RP for aid another on Diplomacy or Bluff?
For Diplomacy I have accepted "I go grab the guy another glass of wine.." without issue. Sometimes the simple things can make the biggest difference.
accepting of practical reality is not a low standard.
No, but it helps create them. GMs need to encourage the behavior they want to see.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, but it helps create them. GMs need to encourage the behavior they want to see.
Sometimes what you want contradicts the other stuff you want
I want everyone to role play
I want to not hear six people talking at once
I want to get the scenario done before the heat death of the universe.