|
(You can aid another on saves?)
Well it actually says "You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell,". I am assuming that aid is still in the form of a +2.
The penalty for failing an attack roll is that you miss, if you fail would the person you're aiding auto-miss? I would say no. Again because skills have specific consequences for failing by a certain amount.
So you are saying that only the skills which say "if you fail by 4 or less..." such as diplomacy or disable device for disabling traps have a penalty on aid another?
Yes.
|
|
That's a good way to make sure its never used except on checks with not failure condition beyond failure out side of having roughly a +5 in the relevant check just to prevent critical failure. I mean the group ties off a rope to a block and tackle to haul the cleric up a cliff with rope and somehow the wizard rolls a 5 and ends up tumbling over the cliff to his death even though he was the last man on the rope and a good 20 feet from the edge.Yes.So, if you fail an aid another on a climb check, you fall?Yes you are, because the Aid Another action specifies results of the check. The specific consequences laid out in the Aid Another section override the general consequences laid on in the skills section.There's specific consequences laid out for success, but none whatsoever for failure, therefore I default to the normal consequences for failing the skill check.
No, the wizard wouldn't fall (except on his ass maybe) because there's nowhere for him to fall. If they were both climbing it would be a different story. Failing the Aid when you yourself are not actually climbing is harmless, the same as failing a climb check to start climbing. You hop a few feet up and then comically slide down the wall.
|
|
What if you succeed on an aid another check, but still fail the climb DC by 10 or more? Do you help the person climb, but fall yourself?Yes.So, if you fail an aid another on a climb check, you fall?Yes you are, because the Aid Another action specifies results of the check. The specific consequences laid out in the Aid Another section override the general consequences laid on in the skills section.There's specific consequences laid out for success, but none whatsoever for failure, therefore I default to the normal consequences for failing the skill check.
You would have already made your climb check for that round I would assume, and even if you hadn't no, passing aid another but failing the main check isn't how aid another works.
Sorry but I have a disconnect of Failing a fall aid another only makes you fall if your actually climbing not just helping, and failing a diplomacy aid by more than 4 has you screaming F*@$ you at the target even if you weren't actually speaking as part of your aid check.
|
|
Sorry but I have a disconnect of Failing a fall aid another only makes you fall if your actually climbing not just helping, and failing a diplomacy aid by more than 4 has you screaming F*@$ you at the target even if you weren't actually speaking as part of your aid check.
Well yeah, if your operating a lift but fail the Aid you don't all of sudden get teleported over the edge.
Uh, you have to be speaking, how else were you using Diplomacy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes.
(You can aid another on saves?)
Well it actually says "You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell,". I am assuming that aid is still in the form of a +2.
The penalty for failing an attack roll is that you miss, if you fail would the person you're aiding auto-miss? I would say no. Again because skills have specific consequences for failing by a certain amount.
So you are saying that only the skills which say "if you fail by 4 or less..." such as diplomacy or disable device for disabling traps have a penalty on aid another?
There is no rule to support this, and like I said just listing skills to avoid dogpiling or making a suggestion of no more than ___ people would handle this from a publisher viewpoint, and it would be a lot better than not writing a rule.
Now as for diplomacy the rule is that you have to fail the check to change their attitude by more than 4. The book even tells you how to get to that DC. So if the person who is aiding is not subject to having to meet that particular DC then they are not subject to causing any penalties.
There are no penalties listed for failing a diplomacy check other than making the person not like you as much. There is no numerical penalty, so any numerical penalty no matter if you are the main speaker or the person aiding imposed is a houserule, not a book rule.
Since the person(aider) is also not able to change the the attitude of anyone in a positive manner it makes sense that they can't change the attitude negatively either.
Sure a GM can impose a penalty or anywhere from -1 to -1000000, but that is GM fiat, not anything that is supported in writing.
Even if you allow the aider to push the attitude up in a positive direction for a DC 10 check which is the the OP is proposing that is still a houserule. By the book you get a +2, not a step increase in attitude. Admittedly an extra increase for a DC 10 check is in the party's favor, it is still not a rule.
|
|
Sorry but I have a disconnect of Failing a fall aid another only makes you fall if your actually climbing not just helping, and failing a diplomacy aid by more than 4 has you screaming F*@$ you at the target even if you weren't actually speaking as part of your aid check.Well yeah, if your operating a lift but fail the Aid you don't all of sudden get teleported over the edge.
Uh, you have to be speaking, how else were you using Diplomacy?
By making sure you're looking impressive, respectable, attractive, or maybe winking, smiling pleasantly, or whatever else you think might be influential considering the person being diplomacized.
Just like for intimidate, you can Aid Another by looking threatening, sharpening your blade, chuckling evilly, drawing your finger across your throat, and so on.
Seriously, why would you think you must 'speak' to influence a situation?
Because Diplomacy more often than not means speaking to?
But the examples you gave are perfectly acceptable nonverbal Aid Anothers.
|
|
@Wraith, there is rules to support that, the specific language in each skill that lists specific consequences for failing by a certain amount.
"Since the person(aider) is also not able to change the the attitude of anyone in a positive manner it makes sense that they can't change the attitude negatively either."
This is a bit misleading since if they succeed they are adding +2 to the roll to change the attitude in a positive manner.
|
|
Because Diplomacy more often than not means speaking to?Sorry but I have a disconnect of Failing a fall aid another only makes you fall if your actually climbing not just helping, and failing a diplomacy aid by more than 4 has you screaming F*@$ you at the target even if you weren't actually speaking as part of your aid check.Well yeah, if your operating a lift but fail the Aid you don't all of sudden get teleported over the edge.
Uh, you have to be speaking, how else were you using Diplomacy?
By making sure you're looking impressive, respectable, attractive, or maybe winking, smiling pleasantly, or whatever else you think might be influential considering the person being diplomacized.
Just like for intimidate, you can Aid Another by looking threatening, sharpening your blade, chuckling evilly, drawing your finger across your throat, and so on.
Seriously, why would you think you must 'speak' to influence a situation?
Sure, the primary Diplomacy check more often than not involves speaking.
Aiding a diplomacy check can easily be otherwise, because they are different 'things'. This is why failing an aid another doesn't incur the same type of penalty as failing the diplomacy check.
I believe it does, though as Wraith made me realize the language for failing the Diplomacy check has the target's attitude worsen in regards to you, not in general. So failing the Aid check would only be bad for the aider if got to the point where they got Hostile attitude of something where the GM rules where they couldn't attempt an Aid anymore.
|
|
Sorry but I have a disconnect of Failing a fall aid another only makes you fall if your actually climbing not just helping, and failing a diplomacy aid by more than 4 has you screaming F*@$ you at the target even if you weren't actually speaking as part of your aid check.Well yeah, if your operating a lift but fail the Aid you don't all of sudden get teleported over the edge.
Uh, you have to be speaking, how else were you using Diplomacy?
Well, if I were to assist someone who was going to be using Diplomacy in a social encounter - I could easily just give him advice on what to do or what not to do.
"Bath before your next game - ah - actually, take a shower every day of the Con, and use soap."
"Brush your teeth..."
"Breath mints are a good idea..."
"Try not to scream at the other party."
"At least look like you are listening when they reply to your questions..."
Yeah - lots of ways to Aid someone with a Diplomacy Skill check without even being in the room.
"This is George, he's my 'wing-man'..."
Pretty sure you have to be present to Aid Another on the check as it's made, rather than preemptive like this. Would make for a cool ability though.
|
|
If that check is made while the other one is trying to Disguise then yeah, but making it way back in the inn when person hasn't rolled Disguise or anywhere else to attempting then I'm going to say no.
That's way too far open to abuse, basically being able to preemptively stockpile Aid Another's on hypothetical future rolls.
|
|
You can disagree all you want as long as you don't mind being wrong.We're just going to disagree on that.Then it's a good thing the Aid Another action isn't the same as a skill check.There are rules for failure, in each individual skill.And that's a house rule. If the rules don't lay out a consequence for failure, there is none.Yes you are, because the Aid Another action specifies results of the check. The specific consequences laid out in the Aid Another section override the general consequences laid on in the skills section.There's specific consequences laid out for success, but none whatsoever for failure, therefore I default to the normal consequences for failing the skill check.
The needless snark is unnecessary just because you don't agree with my reading of the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Wraith, there is rules to support that, the specific language in each skill that lists specific consequences for failing by a certain amount.
"Since the person(aider) is also not able to change the the attitude of anyone in a positive manner it makes sense that they can't change the attitude negatively either."
This is a bit misleading since if they succeed they are adding +2 to the roll to change the attitude in a positive manner.
You know what I meant. I mean them actually going to a different attitude based on just making the 10, just like the primary roller changing the attitude based on hitting a DC.
Adding a +2 is not them changing anything. It is them adding a +2 because if the primary roller rolls low then nothing changes by the actual rules.
There is not rules support. You are wrong.
The rules say hit a certain DC to change the attitude. They also say if you fail that specific number which comes from a specific forumla the attitude drops.
The aid another rules say hit DC 10 to add a +2. There is nothing saying hit the DC 10 for an improve or an attitude is loss if you get a 5. There is also nothing that says that 10 substitutes for the above mentioned forumla, and allows the aiding person to get the benefits and failures of the primary roller just by hitting a 10, and also add a +2 on top of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rysky nobody(not 100%) agrees with you because you are wrong. I am going to bow out of this since my primary goal was mainly to see how many were confused by this and decide if it was worthy of an FAQ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The needless snark is unnecessary just because you don't agree with my reading of the rules.
Your opinion of what the rule says.
Not what the rule actually says.
|
|
I'm not ignoring what all of you are saying, I just don't agree with it. Just because you provide your viewpoint doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
I've been told I'm wrong plenty of times, sometimes they're right, sometimes they're the ones that are wrong. I'm used to being told I'm wrong. It doesn't bother me anymore.
Sorry for any headaches or stress my participating in this thread has caused.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The needless snark is unnecessary just because you don't agree with my reading of the rules.You can disagree all you want as long as you don't mind being wrong.We're just going to disagree on that.
Then it's a good thing the Aid Another action isn't the same as a skill check.
Yes, but the needful snark is quite necessary because, as far as I can tell, literally no one agrees with your reading.
I'm not ignoring what all of you are saying, I just don't agree with it. Just because you provide your viewpoint doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
I've been told I'm wrong plenty of times, sometimes they're right, sometimes they're the ones that are wrong. I'm used to being told I'm wrong. It doesn't bother me anymore.
Sorry for any headaches or stress my participating in this thread has caused.
I'll only agree with your assessment if you also rule that anyone with a Code of Conduct class feature attempting to use Aid Another for the Climb skill loses their class abilities.
If you rule otherwise, you just contradicted yourself.
[/sarcasm]
This came up in an earlier thread.
The key question is this:
If you are giving the penalty of one step on attitude for failure by 5 on the Aid, are you also giving the bonus of one step on success by 5?
If not, you are in the wrong.
Assuming you are giving the +1 / -1 step on the Diplomacy:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tvd4&page=4?Ending-the-Meta-of-AidingAnoth er#153
I already did the math on the Aid Another in Diplomacy to figure when people should or should not roll (assuming that the "by 5" applies in both directions on the Aid Another):
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tvd4&page=4?Ending-the-Meta-of-AidingAnoth er#176
Summary:
With a -1 to Diplomacy {or better} toward a DC10 check for Aid Another, you are actually helping. Characters with Charisma of 8+, 0+ ranks, and no other negative modifiers = player should roll.
With a -2 to Diplomacy {or worse} toward a DC10 check for Aid Another, you are actually hurting the overall chance. Characters with Charisma of 7 or less, no ranks, and no other positive modifiers = player should not roll.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh*
Yeah, you're all right.
Playing in a game with 9 people for years and having them all dogpile with Aid Anothers (Getting an extra +16 made most skill challenges pointless) had heavily biased me towards aid another, and my biases were making see what I wanted to see, rather than what was actually there.
I apologize for how much of a hassle I've made this thread, and thank you to everyone who tried to knock some sense into me.
|
*sigh*
Yeah, you're all right.
Playing in a game with 9 people for years and having them all dogpile with Aid Anothers (Getting an extra +16 made most skill challenges pointless) had heavily biased me towards aid another, and my biases were making see what I wanted to see, rather than what was actually there.
I apologize for how much of a hassle I've made this thread, and thank you to everyone who tried to knock some sense into me.
That is certainly another issue, one that can be handled separately by 'as aid another stipulates' possibly adding a limit to the number of people that are qualified to aid another in any meaningful way. Periodically allow players to make a sense motive check, if they succeed you tell them this NPC does not multitask well and always prefers a specific one on one conversation, if people chime in when they are not being spoken to they are ignored.
Or limiting number of people that can help pry open a stuck door, say if more than 1 person helps to make a survival check to track someone you begin to destroy the tracks rather than find them. All that is actually within the written rule and can help reign in characters that have a -3 Modifier but want to meta game helping because there's 0% chance of making things worse.
Playing in a game with 9 people for years and having them all dogpile with Aid Anothers (Getting an extra +16 made most skill challenges pointless) had heavily biased me towards aid another, and my biases were making see what I wanted to see, rather than what was actually there.
I might suggest(*) re-thinking how you design skill challenges. The best skill challenges involve a variety of skills, not just one, and are often about how you put the pieces together -- all right, I will use Animal Handling to get the wombat to come out of the cage, while you use Acrobatics on the ledge to turn the handle and the bard can use Perform (nose flute) to break the glass in the archway so that the cleric can use Linguistics and read the inscription on the other wall. The bard can't Aid Another on my Handle Animal check, because she's busy with the flute....
But just "we need a DC 85 Strength check to lift this portcullis" isn't much of a skill check, and the whole point of such an action is precisely to get the party to cooperate by dogpiling as much as possible on the bonuses. Pathfinder goes out of its way to reduce the role of that type of check plays in the game, both through the take 10 mechanism (making low pointless rolls literally unnecessary) and the take 20 mechanism (making high pointless rolls literally unnecessary, at the expense of time). The Aid Another rules are just another supporting design decision.
(*) In fact, I actually do suggest this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, she just ran out of determination in this verbal duel.
|
|
wait - who rolled the Diplomacy check here and who aided?
It appears that Rysky has been convinced - but I am wondering how many people "dog piled with Aid Anothers" to boost the final total above the target DC?
I think Rysky was not directly involved in the OP incident. Just her own experiences with large player games and dog piled assists.
|
Oh, I realize Rysky was not the original poster (OP), but he was the one who continued to hold a position opposed to the majority consensus the longest (and fought the valiant fight to the end) . So clearly Rysky had the highest DC - so I was wondering how many Aid Another assists it took to push the final total over the DC.
And I was sort of pointing out that the current medium we are using (the Rules Forum) allows for a large number of persons to do "Aid Another" in the discussion/debate.
|
|
XD
I don't think it was anyone in particular, just taking a step back from the thread and thinking over everything, my experiences and why I thought this was the way it is.
lol, and I tend to put things into "game mode" too much, so I would like to think it was a final Aid Another to the Diplomacy roll that pushed the total over ... or something like that.
Happens to all of us - it's often how we learn this game we play together.