Aid Another: Knowledge?

[Nefreet]

nosig wrote:

what about the other INT based skills?

Can we use Aid Another on Appraise?

Craft?

Linguistics?

Spellcraft?

I suppose not Spellcraft, to identify a magical item, since your standard action is dedicated to concentrating on Detect Magic.

I don't understand the other ones you posted.

I don't believe anyone's suggesting that all Int-based skill checks can't benefit from Aid Another.

[Nefreet]

Muse. wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

BTW: Wise Teacher trait states that it is possible to aid another on Knowledge checks.

Clearly this trait is only useful if you have the Collective Recollection feat.

Good evidence for both sides.

Keep 'em coming!

[Tarondor]

This conversation reminds me of why I like GMing more than playing.

[Cevah]

The Aid Another explicitly states you can aid skill checks.

To rule you cannot aid a knowledge skill check, you need to come up with a specific rule that overrides the general rule above. I haven't found any such rule.

How much aid? 100 people helping would be difficult to take in all 100 at once. A few, fine. How many? GM decides. Standard party is 4, so a default max of self plus 3 aids is what I would do.

You can also aid a perception check, however, that would be a non-reactive check. For example, looking for a secret entrance can certainly be aided. Making a case for aiding a reactive check would be harder since you would have to ready your aid for the reaction.

/cevah

[Zabraxis]

So no definitive answer. At least I'm not alone in my confusion :)

Personally, I can see restricting AA on Knowledges in combat for things like the Kirin Style tree or IDing for Bane use, however, I can't see restricting it for general knowledge checks (learning about a city etc.) that take place over time.

I'm not a fan of using feats/trait to infer you can't do something the rules already say you can. There was a problem w/ that logic and a feat or 2 in Ultimate Intrigue before a dev spoke up & they FAQ'd it. I do realize that's all we're left to work with w/o a specific FAQ tho.

[Cevah]

AA explicitly allows adding to skill checks.

To deny it, you *must* find a specific rule.

I have found none.

It does not get more definitive than that.

/cevah

[Diego Rossi]

Nefreet wrote:

• The Collective Recollection feat exists, so clearly someone else didn't think Aiding Knowledges was possible prior, either.

Actually, Nefreet, that feat make you capable to help even if your skill isn't high enough to achieve success with a roll of 20, something that otherwise is impossible, as Aid Another say:

PRD 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. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.

It don't say: "You could try" or "in wick you have trained", it say "you can't achieve alone". So if you are unable to get a success with a roll of 20 on the dice, you can't help.

The Collective Recollection feat change that to:

PRD wrote:

You must have at least 1 rank in the Knowledge skill to be aided in order to use this feat.

a way less stringent requirement.

[Ascalaphus]

Diego Rossi wrote:

PRD 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. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.

It don't say: "You could try" or "in wick you have trained", it say "you can't achieve alone". So if you are unable to get a success with a roll of 20 on the dice, you can't help.

It's a matter of where you put the emphasis. The listed example is Disable Device, a trained only skill. If you didn't have ranks in Disable Device, you can't use it. I believe that's what the line means: you can't aid on skills you can't try yourself.

[Diego Rossi]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

PRD 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. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.

It don't say: "You could try" or "in wick you have trained", it say "you can't achieve alone". So if you are unable to get a success with a roll of 20 on the dice, you can't help.

It's a matter of where you put the emphasis. The listed example is Disable Device, a trained only skill. If you didn't have ranks in Disable Device, you can't use it. I believe that's what the line means: you can't aid on skills you can't try yourself.

As written, if the skill is restricted to trained only you need to be able to achieve success to be able to use the aid another action. Reading it another way mean that you are discarding part of the rule.

[Jeff Morse]

Did not read most of posts, but wanted to say--for me it depends on what the situation is. In combat, no aiding. in library, sure. Standing in the forest discussing types of trees, sure. at a party talking about the gods with someone, absolutely.

[Pizza Lord]

I don't allow Aid Another on Knowledge checks. For this discussion I am going with the assumption that we're referring to the typical scenario where you see a monster/item/hazard and not libraries or research scenarios.

Knowledge specifically represents what you know. You either know it or you don't. If you have four people with Knowledge (arcana) and you see a magical beast. You all four roll your checks, if one or more of you succeed, then they know what it is, and can then tell everyone else.

While this is 'helping' your party by sharing information, this is not the same as Aiding Another to complete a task. Those examples where you're supposedly asking someone a question and they answer the question and that's supposed to be an example of Aid Another are not what's really happening.

Paraphrased example:

-----------------------------------------
"Who's that actor?"
"Which one?"
"He was in Hellboy... he was Hellboy."
"Yeah, and Sons of Anarchy..."
...
"Ron Perlman!"

That's just an example of you already knowing the answer. You already know who Ron Perlman was and some information, apparently that he is an actor and he was in Hellboy. That's you succeeding on your check. If you didn't know, you would have failed. As for your friend, he knew Ron Perlman, so he passed. His Knowledge check revealed that he knew Ron Perlman was in Sons of Anarchy, and then told you, which you may or may not have known. That does not mean you passed your Knowledge (Ron Perlman) check sufficiently to know he was in Sons of Anarchy. Your friend did, and he told you. After that, if you are discussing Ron Perlman you could mention he was in Sons of Anarchy because you were told (unless your friend lied to you or was wrong).
-----------------------------------------

So you just check to see what everyone knows and then either they share the information or they don't.

Player 1 (succeeding on a Knowledge check high enough to learn the following information): "That white horse with a horn on it... I believe it's called a 'unicorn' and it's a magical beast. It is a good creature with magical powers."
Then, everyone knows what a unicorn is (based on what you've shared, assuming they believe you, and that it actually is a unicorn.) At that point, after encountering a unicorn, they probably don't need to make Knowledge checks to identify a unicorn again, even if there was a party member without any ranks in the skill. (Although a higher check might reveal additional information than was passed on. But that's still a separate check. You don't get a +2 bonus for having gotten help or information from the other character for the knowledge they shared, whether it was at the same time or a week later.)

Player 2 (later):"I use my smite good power and hit that black unicorn there! As I do that, I say to the others, "This horse with a horn on it is called a 'Unicorn' and it's a good creature with magical powers, use your protection from good spells!'"
GM:You don't have any Knowledge (Arcana), you don't know that.
Player 2: I've encountered these before. I've been specifically told what this is (or at least appears to be) and it's something I know. Like how I know the innkeeper who sent us here is named 'Bill' because he introduced himself to me. I don't need Knowledge (Local) to find out if I know that information."
(Although if 'Bill' was a fake and the real innkeeper was supposed to be named 'Phillip' then that's a whole other story where Knowledge (Local) would have been handy to have... or at least one of my other party members could have had it and shared that knowledge with a successful skill check. It's also possible that a black horse with a horn might not turn out to be a unicorn, but this is still within 'reasonable assumption' territory.)

On the subject of having Familiars Aid Another on their master's check: I also don't allow it, for the above reason, but even if I did, I wouldn't allow it because a familiar (that gains its master's skills) is assumed to have the same knowledge as its master. It's considered an extension (even counting as oneself for certain effects), so even with an intelligence difference where the familiar somehow got more intelligent than the master, it would be just one check, because if the master doesn't know (or know how) to do something, which is what a Knowledge check represents, then the familiar doesn't. That's like wearing a nice fancy hat and your friend putting the exact same fancy hat on top of your other hat... it probably doesn't make you extra fancy-looking, not even a little +2, it probably does nothing or even makes you look sillier.

If there's a situation or special case, of course you can go for it. If you have a special Imp familiar, and it should reasonably know what a devil is, then it can make its own Knowledge check (or you can say it just knows, but you also decides what it decides to share and whether it's truthful or not), but that's no different from having someone else just telling you something.

[Orfamay Quest]

Jeff Morse wrote:

Did not read most of posts, but wanted to say--for me it depends on what the situation is. In combat, no aiding. in library, sure. Standing in the forest discussing types of trees, sure. at a party talking about the gods with someone, absolutely.

I wouldn't even have a problem in combat, if people were spending actions appropriately. "Hey, Moe, are vampires vulnerable to silver?" "Curly, this ain't even a vampire, you moron!" is perfectly legit, but takes time.