|
If you roll and miss on your first attack does it give you penalties on subsequent ones? No?"...because there was no opening in their defense I could take advantage of.making a roll == 'actively doing something' just isn't correct.Putting aside whether you have negative consequences if you fail an aid another check or not (since we're not going to agree on that) how do you come to this conclusion that if you fail a check it's because you didn't do anything? If you're attempting something you're doing something. If you fail you failed, you didn't choose not to do it, otherwise you wouldn't have attempted the check at all.
This logic gets even weirder when applied to attack rolls.
Player: "I full Attack with my Greatsword and get a15, a 17, and a 6."
GM: "You swing and miss at the last moment with your first attack but your follow up manages to land, your last attack goes wide."
Player: "No, I just didn't attack."
"Yeah, my diplomacy roll failed by 5 or more, but I shouldn't be penalized because I didn't actually say anything, I just got too shy." "Well, GM, that ability only activates on a missed attack - I didn't actually attack him, his defense had no openings." "I failed my check to cast defensively and since I determined I wouldn't be able to use my spell safely I don't lose the slot."
If you roll, you're trying to do something. If you fail, you tried to do something and failed at it. You did not just decide not to do it because you rolled poorly, that's metagaming (ie "well I rolled bad so I take back what I said I was doing").
Well you do have the whole lower BAB for each subsequent attack after the first. And there are some abilities that key off you missing with an attack.
|
|
The clue that the aid another is not the same as the action itself is that it does not have the same DC.
And the clue that disagrees with that is that you're using the same skill to help said action and can use the same modifiers if you posses them which leans very heavily on it being the same action.
|
|
You have that lower chance to hit on subsequent attacks whether you hit or miss on the first one, and the abilities keying off of an early hit explicitly say so.Well you do have the whole lower BAB for each subsequent attack after the first. And there are some abilities that key off you missing with an attack.If you roll and miss on your first attack does it give you penalties on subsequent ones? No?"...because there was no opening in their defense I could take advantage of.making a roll == 'actively doing something' just isn't correct.Putting aside whether you have negative consequences if you fail an aid another check or not (since we're not going to agree on that) how do you come to this conclusion that if you fail a check it's because you didn't do anything? If you're attempting something you're doing something. If you fail you failed, you didn't choose not to do it, otherwise you wouldn't have attempted the check at all.
This logic gets even weirder when applied to attack rolls.
Player: "I full Attack with my Greatsword and get a15, a 17, and a 6."
GM: "You swing and miss at the last moment with your first attack but your follow up manages to land, your last attack goes wide."
Player: "No, I just didn't attack."
"Yeah, my diplomacy roll failed by 5 or more, but I shouldn't be penalized because I didn't actually say anything, I just got too shy." "Well, GM, that ability only activates on a missed attack - I didn't actually attack him, his defense had no openings." "I failed my check to cast defensively and since I determined I wouldn't be able to use my spell safely I don't lose the slot."
If you roll, you're trying to do something. If you fail, you tried to do something and failed at it. You did not just decide not to do it because you rolled poorly, that's metagaming (ie "well I rolled bad so I take back what I said I was doing").
This particular argument wasn't about penalties for failing an aid another, it was about people flavoring their fails as not failing but simply not doing the action at all, creating a bizarre narrative disconnect. If the openonet has an ability that triggers when you miss with an attack and you miss with an attacks it triggers, having that mechanically happen but narratively saying you chose not to attack just creates this odd mess as Lunias pointed. Either the player will claim that the effect shouldn't trigger since by failing they chose not to do it at all, or the odd disconnect of them failing and flavoring it as them not doing anything at all but somehow the ability still triggers.
It's a rather blatant abuse of being able to flavor what your character is doing in accordance with the die rolls.
|
|
And the clue that disagrees with that is that you're using the same skill to help said action and can use the same modifiers if you posses them which leans very heavily on it being the same action.The clue that the aid another is not the same as the action itself is that it does not have the same DC.
Except it doesn't have the same D.C.
Are grapple and disarm the same action because the same bonus and number on the stat sheet go into them?
1) Having a different DC doesn't mean much when it's still the same action, without even using Aid but doing separate checks there could be circumstances that make the DC different for different characters.
2) No, they're both CM actions but actually different abilities, in the same that you can't use Knowledge (Nobility) to Aid on a Knowledge (Dungeonerring) roll (unless you have some odd ability that lets you do just that). Using the exact same skill with the same possible modifiers under the same circumstances very much says to me it's the same action, and carries the consequences of doing so.
|
|
And the clue that disagrees with that is that you're using the same skill to help said action and can use the same modifiers if you posses them which leans very heavily on it being the same action.The clue that the aid another is not the same as the action itself is that it does not have the same DC.
Except it doesn't have the same D.C.
Are grapple and disarm the same action because the same bonus and number on the stat sheet go into them?
1) Having a different DC doesn't mean much when it's still the same action, without even using Aid but doing separate checks there could be circumstances that make the DC different for different characters.
2) No, they're both CM actions but actually different abilities, in the same that you can't use Knowledge (Nobility) to Aid on a Knowledge (Dungeonerring) roll (unless you have some odd ability that lets you do just that). Using the exact same skill with the same possible modifiers under the same circumstances very much says to me it's the same action, and carries the consequences of doing so.
In fact 1) has that blatantly spelled out in the Influencing Attitude section of Diplomacy, which has different DCs depending on the target's attitude towards the person attempting Diplomacy. They could like you (DC 10), but hate your buddy (DC 25).
|
|
And the clue that disagrees with that is that you're using the same skill to help said action and can use the same modifiers if you posses them which leans very heavily on it being the same action.The clue that the aid another is not the same as the action itself is that it does not have the same DC.
Except it doesn't have the same D.C.
Are grapple and disarm the same action because the same bonus and number on the stat sheet go into them?
1) Having a different DC doesn't mean much when it's still the same action, without even using Aid but doing separate checks there could be circumstances that make the DC different for different characters.
2) No, they're both CM actions but actually different abilities, in the same that you can't use Knowledge (Nobility) to Aid on a Knowledge (Dungeonerring) roll (unless you have some odd ability that lets you do just that). Using the exact same skill with the same possible modifiers under the same circumstances very much says to me it's the same action, and carries the consequences of doing so.
Except one is explicitly defined as an 'aid another' action which has its own rules, and the other is not.
I repeat: would you give an extra step IMPROVEMENT in attitude if the aid another succeeded by five or more? Why not, if your theory of the aid another being the same as the skill hold true? Why only the negative and not the extra positive? It can't be because the rules don't say so, because the rules don't say a negative applies either.
The rules say what you get on a success, a +2 to the main check. By my reading of "by making the same kind of check" I come to the conclusion that you use the specifics for certain failures as well. Other's have suggested a -2 instead of decreasing their attitude which seems more fair. But by my reading, my opinion of it, is that you suffer the special consequences if you meet them by rolling low enough. i could be wrong, yes, but that's my reading of the rules.
|
|
Whatever the base skill, when used as an aid another all of the text is replaced by the text which says:
That is it. That is the entire relevant text for aid another actions, which is defined as any skill or action used as aid another. It ceases to be defined as a skill roll and comes to be defined as an aid another roll, which uses that block of rules text.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.
Which is still a skill roll.
If a person has an ability from a class/feat/trait that gives them a bonus on influencing another person's attitude would you not let them get that bonus if they were using Aid another to help with an influencing roll?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP:
Your ruling is clearly not RAW, as nowhere is it written that there is a penalty for a failed Aid Another action - to diplomacy or any other check. You either succeed and provide a +2 bonus to your ally; or you fail and provide no bonus to him; or the DM determines that the aid another action isn't possible for that particular check.
I do agree with you that there should be a penalty for failure of said check, but this is my opinion and not RAW.
I believe your enforced penalty was way too harsh (a simple -1/-2 to the diplomatic characters check instead of gaining the +2 bonus would have been a much better solution). However, this is also based on interpretation and is not RAW.
For me it comes down to this:
If your players were aware of this non-RAW penalty for failure, and how severe the penalty would be and they made the attempt anyways, that's on them and they should deal with the consequences.
But, if they were not aware of this, then that's just you being a jerk and good for them for not putting up with that.
|
|
You pretty certainly are wrong: the text lists the effects that an aid another has under any circumstances by the rules. Anything else is houseruling for your specific game.
The text also says this "by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort."
To me that reads that depending on the check there could also be consequences for failures.
I could be wrong, I could be right.
*shrugs*
|
|
What does the rules text say? You make a check against your skill roll. On a skill roll all relevant bonuses or penalties apply. If it succeeds, it has the listed effects for a aid another action. If it fails it also has the penalties for failure which are listed under aid another, do you see any such penalties listed there?Whatever the base skill, when used as an aid another all of the text is replaced by the text which says:
That is it. That is the entire relevant text for aid another actions, which is defined as any skill or action used as aid another. It ceases to be defined as a skill roll and comes to be defined as an aid another roll, which uses that block of rules text.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.
Which is still a skill roll.
If a person has an ability from a class/feat/trait that gives them a bonus on influencing another person's attitude would you not let them get that bonus if they were using Aid another to help with an influencing roll?
If it's the same skill and all relevant bonuses and penalties apply then that reads to me as it being the same action. The normal effects for succeeding is overwritten by the aid another effect. If the skill has a specific penalty than you get that penalty if you fail.
|
|
You pretty certainly are wrong: the text lists the effects that an aid another has under any circumstances by the rules. Anything else is houseruling for your specific game.The text also says this "by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort."
To me that reads that depending on the check there could also be consequences for failures.
I could be wrong, I could be right.
*shrugs*
By RAW you are unambiguously wrong: aid another is a type of action which uses a skill check as it's engine. The mechanical effects of an aid another by RAW are listed under aid another. Anything else is house rules, which might be just ducky in your game, but they ARE house rules.
I do not believe I am wrong, and I've repeatedly quoted the relevant parts from aid another that I believe back up my position.
|
|
The rules say what you get on a success, a +2 to the main check. By my reading of "by making the same kind of check" I come to the conclusion that you use the specifics for certain failures as well. Other's have suggested a -2 instead of decreasing their attitude which seems more fair. But by my reading, my opinion of it, is that you suffer the special consequences if you meet them by rolling low...That's a fair interpretation of the rule too, which I share (thus why I was suggesting a -2 penalty (risk=gain)) but unlike the OP'S, I don't think either you or I would claim this is RAW. Correct?
And that was the straw that broke the camel's back in the original post, an ad hoc ruling/penalty (apparently in a long line of similar ruling) was imposed without the aiding player's knowledge of the potential risks involved, if he failed drastically his Aid Another roll, and the GM (OP) stating that this was RAW.
*nods*
I am not claiming this as strictly RAW, hence why I say could be wrong, but I believe I am right.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a character fails, say, a climb check to aid another climber by 5 or more, that character falls. I don't think there's any room for interpretation on this, the character made a climb check and failed it by 5 or more.
The same should hold true for any other kind of skill check with bad stuff on a failure. Arguing about "kinds of checks" is pedantry at it's worst.That said, if a group check like the OPs is overall successful, a check can't both succeed and fail at once; either the NPC's attitude is improved or is worsened.
If I am making a Climb check for purposes of Aid Another, and I fail my check by 5 or more, do I fall? If no, then if I fail to Aid Another on a Diplomacy check, I'm not going to suffer the consequences of that, either.
The main character making the check is the one who has to hit the target DC to succeed. I only need a DC 10. The mechanic is different for those Aiding Another. Those aiding have a different target number. There is a specific formula to determine the DC to influence the attitude of an NPC. That formula is not the same as for those Aiding Another, which is a flat DC 10. The penalty for failing by 5 or more is on the character making the actual attempt to influence the attitude of the NPC, not the one aiding another.
|
|
Penalties =/= consequences.I wasn't trying to say RDM42 was saying that they were, my apologies for the confusion.
The target of the diplomacy check's attitude going down 1 step is a consequence. A character having a -2 to their diplomacy against followers of a certain deity is a penalty.
If it has all the relevant bonuses and penalties then to it should have the relevant consequences as well. If you're using aid another on a roll to influence attitude then you should get the same bonuses and penalties on your roll that apply because it's the same roll (Made up example, Friendly social Trait: +3 bonus on rolls to influence a creatures attitude).
If it's not, aka you're not making an Aid Another (influence Attitude) but a blank Aid Another (Diplomacy) roll as is being claimed then you would not get the bonuses from the hypothetical Friendly trait.
|
|
Penalties =/= consequences.I wasn't trying to say RDM42 was saying that they were, my apologies for the confusion.The target of the diplomacy check's attitude going down 1 step is a consequence. A character having a -2 to their diplomacy against followers of a certain deity is a penalty.If it has all the relevant bonuses and penalties then to it should have the relevant consequences as well. If you're using aid another on a roll to influence attitude then you should get the same bonuses and penalties on your roll that apply because it's the same roll (Made up example, Friendly social Trait: +3 bonus on rolls to influence a creatures attitude).
If it's not, aka you're not making an Aid Another (influence Attitude) but a blank Aid Another (Diplomacy) roll as is being claimed then you would not get the bonuses from the hypothetical Friendly trait.
Except the text of the aid another action lists pretty explicitly what the by RAW effects of aid another are. If you succeed, a plus two to the roll of the person being aided. End of line.
Any additional effects are house rules.
And that same text is where I'm explicitly getting my reasoning as well.
Again, I could be right, I could be wrong, but I do not believe I am wrong.
|
|
I honestly can't, even squinting, see where you can get that from raw. If it meant you to apply the penalties of skill failiure for an aid another _it would say so_.Penalties =/= consequences.I wasn't trying to say RDM42 was saying that they were, my apologies for the confusion.The target of the diplomacy check's attitude going down 1 step is a consequence. A character having a -2 to their diplomacy against followers of a certain deity is a penalty.If it has all the relevant bonuses and penalties then to it should have the relevant consequences as well. If you're using aid another on a roll to influence attitude then you should get the same bonuses and penalties on your roll that apply because it's the same roll (Made up example, Friendly social Trait: +3 bonus on rolls to influence a creatures attitude).
If it's not, aka you're not making an Aid Another (influence Attitude) but a blank Aid Another (Diplomacy) roll as is being claimed then you would not get the bonuses from the hypothetical Friendly trait.
Except the text of the aid another action lists pretty explicitly what the by RAW effects of aid another are. If you succeed, a plus two to the roll of the person being aided. End of line.
Any additional effects are house rules.
And that same text is where I'm explicitly getting my reasoning as well.
Again, I could be right, I could be wrong, but I do not believe I am wrong.
"by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort."
That's the line I read. It calls out something that you get if you pass the roll, I go off the normal rules for failure of that skill if you don't.
Doesn't Aid Another have a built in Rule 0 anyway?
|
Based upon the discussion so far the disagreement comes down to my interpretation of "making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort" = a Diplomacy Influence Attitude check whereas the counter position is that "making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort" = a Diplomacy check to Aid Another (even though Aid Another is not listed as a"kind" of Diplomacy check).
Assuming the counter position is correct for argument's sake and Aid Another is a distinct type of check then for all those characters that have traits that give bonuses to Influence Attitude checks but not other types of Diplomacy checks would those trait bonuses apply to an Aid Another check to Influence Attitude?
My interpretation is that the Influence Attitude trait bonuses would apply since it is that kind of skill check however the interpretation popular thus far on this thread would indicate that it should not apply since it is a different type of check.
No, this means you must use the same skill. The example for why that has to be called out is if you look at any prepackaged scenario/module. Most of them will have some option where you can interact with a PC and you can improve his attitude either with Diplomacy or Knowledge Aracana (an example that might apply to a magical scholar). If the primary person interacting with them is using Knowledge Arcana to achieve the task, then everyone who is aiding must also use knowledge Arcana. You can't Aid the Knowledge Check with Diplomacy just because you could have used diplomacy rather than Arcana.
Here is the entire entry for Aid Another
"Aid Another
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."
So by RAW, if you succeed at a DC 10 Check you successfully aid the person you are assisting and they gain a +2 Bonus. There is no listed penalty for failure. So unless what you are doing has a more specific ruling that says Failed aid another actions can result in negative effects taking place, then no such negatives can be applied.
Personally I have never seen a specific ruling say that the aid another action can result in any kind of negative impact on the situation trying to be helped. If it helps you can picture it as risk vs reward. the primary person can roll at nat 20 and have a high reward succeeding easily, or he can roll at nat 1 and has a high risk of failing and causing a fight to break out. Alternately the person aiding can roll a nat 20 and add a small +2 bonus to the overall check. Or they could roll a nat 1 and simply not contribute.
You have decided that because how you've interpreted RAW the person with no high reward, still has a high risk applied to his check. The rule does not actually say that the aid another action on the check would still receive the failure chance, that's simply how you've interpreted it.
Note, the "built in rule 0" Quantum Steve mentioned is only imposing further restrictions. This means even if you are talking to someone, the GM can say the person you are talking to is very dim-witted (Int 3-5 maybe) and therefore is unable to follow conversations with more than 2-3 people, This limits you to only being able to have 1-2 people aid the primary check. It does not set the option to apply a random penalty because
|
|
Which might be fine if the text did not then go on to explicitly list what its effects were in the same text.I honestly can't, even squinting, see where you can get that from raw. If it meant you to apply the penalties of skill failiure for an aid another _it would say so_.Penalties =/= consequences.I wasn't trying to say RDM42 was saying that they were, my apologies for the confusion.The target of the diplomacy check's attitude going down 1 step is a consequence. A character having a -2 to their diplomacy against followers of a certain deity is a penalty.If it has all the relevant bonuses and penalties then to it should have the relevant consequences as well. If you're using aid another on a roll to influence attitude then you should get the same bonuses and penalties on your roll that apply because it's the same roll (Made up example, Friendly social Trait: +3 bonus on rolls to influence a creatures attitude).
If it's not, aka you're not making an Aid Another (influence Attitude) but a blank Aid Another (Diplomacy) roll as is being claimed then you would not get the bonuses from the hypothetical Friendly trait.
Except the text of the aid another action lists pretty explicitly what the by RAW effects of aid another are. If you succeed, a plus two to the roll of the person being aided. End of line.
Any additional effects are house rules.
And that same text is where I'm explicitly getting my reasoning as well.
Again, I could be right, I could be wrong, but I do not believe I am wrong.
"by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort."
That's the line I read. It calls out something that you get if you pass the roll, I go off the normal rules for failure of that skill if you don't.
Yes, it calls out how it differs from the normal skill usage.
|
|
If you are taking the written rules and saying that they mean what you interpret them to mean. Then you really should not be calling this a RAW game.
Under those circumstances you are playing a game where RAI is ignored and all rulings are interpreted by the GM. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with a game like that. But don't sell it to your players as RAW because they are going to be disappointed often as you interpret things into the rules that aren't specifically there by RAW. By what one of your players has posted, that seems exactly what has already been taking place.
|
|
If you are taking the written rules and saying that they mean what you interpret them to mean. Then you really should not be calling this a RAW game.
Under those circumstances you are playing a game where RAI is ignored and all rulings are interpreted by the GM. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with a game like that. But don't sell it to your players as RAW because they are going to be disappointed often as you interpret things into the rules that aren't specifically there by RAW. By what one of your players has posted, that seems exactly what has already been taking place.
Uh, I'm not the OP who is the GM in question.
And I never claimed it as RAW, it is RAI (which is why I admit I could be wrong).
|
|
If you are taking the written rules and saying that they mean what you interpret them to mean. Then you really should not be calling this a RAW game.
Under those circumstances you are playing a game where RAI is ignored and all rulings are interpreted by the GM. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with a game like that. But don't sell it to your players as RAW because they are going to be disappointed often as you interpret things into the rules that aren't specifically there by RAW. By what one of your players has posted, that seems exactly what has already been taking place.
Uh, I'm not the OP who is the GM in question.
And I never claimed it as RAW, it is RAI (which is why I admit I could be wrong).
Sorry I wasn't replying to you, just adding a comment to the OP that came after your comment. The OP did claim he was running a strictly RAW game.
|
|
Yes. In that the only effects it has is a plus two bonus if it succeeds. That is how it differs from an ordinary skill check. Because it is an 'aid another' action not an ordinary skill check.
And the way I read it is the positive outcome is changed, the +2 to the main skill, but you still have consequences for failure. And it may be an aid another rather than a "normal" skill check but it is still the same skill check and it is using all the possible bonuses and penalties to the roll.
|
|
Sorry I wasn't replying to you, just adding a comment to the OP that came after your comment. The OP did claim he was running a strictly RAW game.If you are taking the written rules and saying that they mean what you interpret them to mean. Then you really should not be calling this a RAW game.
Under those circumstances you are playing a game where RAI is ignored and all rulings are interpreted by the GM. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with a game like that. But don't sell it to your players as RAW because they are going to be disappointed often as you interpret things into the rules that aren't specifically there by RAW. By what one of your players has posted, that seems exactly what has already been taking place.
Uh, I'm not the OP who is the GM in question.
And I never claimed it as RAW, it is RAI (which is why I admit I could be wrong).
Ah okay I see, I missed your previous post, my bad.
|
|
Whether you believe it or not, you are wrong. Like so wrong you couldn't be more wrong. And you're still misinterpreting the word penalty. It unequivocally does not mean what you think it should mean.Penalties =/= consequences.I wasn't trying to say RDM42 was saying that they were, my apologies for the confusion.The target of the diplomacy check's attitude going down 1 step is a consequence. A character having a -2 to their diplomacy against followers of a certain deity is a penalty.If it has all the relevant bonuses and penalties then to it should have the relevant consequences as well. If you're using aid another on a roll to influence attitude then you should get the same bonuses and penalties on your roll that apply because it's the same roll (Made up example, Friendly social Trait: +3 bonus on rolls to influence a creatures attitude).
If it's not, aka you're not making an Aid Another (influence Attitude) but a blank Aid Another (Diplomacy) roll as is being claimed then you would not get the bonuses from the hypothetical Friendly trait.
Except the text of the aid another action lists pretty explicitly what the by RAW effects of aid another are. If you succeed, a plus two to the roll of the person being aided. End of line.
Any additional effects are house rules.
And that same text is where I'm explicitly getting my reasoning as well.
Again, I could be right, I could be wrong, but I do not believe I am wrong.
*shrugs*
And I don't see how I'm misinterting the word "penalty" in anything I've said?
|
|
Except the relevant text, the rules for aid another, make absolutely no mention whatsoever in any way, form, or even allusion to consequences for failure of the aid another roll.Yes. In that the only effects it has is a plus two bonus if it succeeds. That is how it differs from an ordinary skill check. Because it is an 'aid another' action not an ordinary skill check.And the way I read it is the positive outcome is changed, the +2 to the main skill, but you still have consequences for failure. And it may be an aid another rather than a "normal" skill check but it is still the same skill check and it is using all the possible bonuses and penalties to the roll.
They already do that when they say you're making a cooperative skill check.
|
|
I've already explained how. The outcome of the roll is not a penalty. Penalty has a specific definition within this game. The most basic definition of a penalty is a negative bonus applied to a roll. That's it. The consequences of that roll are not penalties, even if they are negative outcomes.
So when Aid Another says all bonuses and penalties, it doesn't mean outcomes. It literally, and only means modifiers to the roll from ability scores, feats, traits and other sources.
I'm sorry for the confusion but I haven't been using those words in the way you think I am. I was using that since the roll uses the same bonuses and penalties then it is indeed the same roll, I wasn't taking penalty in that specific sentence to mean consequences and failures.
|
|
That is not, in fact, rules text but a description. You are making a cooperative skill check - the results of that check are whatever bonuses are applied due to successful aid another checks, plus the roll of the person making the attempt, compared against the relevant DC.They already do that when they say you're making a cooperative skill check.Except the relevant text, the rules for aid another, make absolutely no mention whatsoever in any way, form, or even allusion to consequences for failure of the aid another roll.Yes. In that the only effects it has is a plus two bonus if it succeeds. That is how it differs from an ordinary skill check. Because it is an 'aid another' action not an ordinary skill check.And the way I read it is the positive outcome is changed, the +2 to the main skill, but you still have consequences for failure. And it may be an aid another rather than a "normal" skill check but it is still the same skill check and it is using all the possible bonuses and penalties to the roll.
It is a description in a rule, it's not the flavor text that becomes before the a feat description.