What is the point of the Assist action?

[Knight Magenta]

I was locking at the Assist action when trying to find neat uses for my third action, and then I noticed this:

Assist wrote:

You help an ally attack the enemy or foil the enemy’s attacks against one of your allies. Choose one enemy you’re adjacent to and one ally adjacent to that enemy. Then, attempt a melee attack against the enemy’s AC.

Assist targets AC and has a critical failure case where it applies -2 to your ally. If you are expected to have a ~50% chance to hit, making an Assist attack with your 2nd or 3rd attack seems counterproductive. Yet to make giving up your primary attack worthwhile, your own damage output needs to be about 1 tenth of your ally.

I could maybe see a save-focused spell-caster using Assist, but they have no way to use Assist at range or any desire to be in melee. Assist is such an iconic action that it would be sad to see it relegated to being super niche.

My quick fix would be to give Assist attacks +10 to hit (or target AC-10). That way, giving up your primary attack may be something you want to do to give a stronger friend +4 to hit, but it makes using your 3rd attack something that's not counter productive.

[Zman0]

Hmmm....

Assist needs a couple points of clarification. Is it actually an attack, ie do you deal damage to the enemy. If so, then it is an absolutely great first attack for melee characters anytime you're double-teaming an enemy. For many characters it would be the default attack in that situation.

If you do not deal damage, and its merely a check using your to hit vs their AC, and its more a diversion, then Assist needs to lose the attack trait, as counterintuitive that sounds. That way you wouldn't suffer your MAP to it and it would just be an opposed check and it would work as intended.

Seeing as it doesn't specify its a strike, and has no downside compared to the standard strike, I'm inclined to believe its the latter an just a check in which case it needs to lose the Attack Trait so it doesn't suffer MAP.

[Knight Magenta]

I guess that removing the attack trait does make sense since Assist is quite different from most attack. Unlike most attacks, it has 2 targets (your ally and enemy). It does not deal damage so it would not make sense to apply most enhancements to it. Finally, it has a negative critical failure effect.

[Fuzzypaws]

Alternatively, the DC of the Assist check could be the target's AC minus 5, instead of just the target's full AC.

[Mark Seifter]

The Assist action is at its best when there's another PC who does a significant amount more damage than you do on a hit, and especially if you think they will be making a fair number of attacks on the next turn. For instance, suppose you are a Strength 10, Dex 16 bard who has already used dirge of doom on the enemy and moved into a flank and are considering stabbing with your +1 rapier vs Assist on Amiri, and Amiri needs a 10 to hit the enemy on her first attack after dirge and flank (thanks to your nice Dex, you need a 10 also). A hit on a Strike would give you 7 damage, and a crit (on a 20) would give you 18.5 damage. On a successful Assist, you give Amiri a +2 (a crit gives more, but that cancels the possibility of -2 on a critical failure). If Amiri was going to swing 3 times, your Assist adds an expected 8/20 of Amiri's damage (+2 to all three attacks, and it adds +2 chance to crit on the first attack), and Amiri's damage with her +1 Large greatsword is 25. 8/20 of 25 is 10 damage, so you have a noticeably better expected result in Assisting Amiri than in attacking with your rapier. If Amiri is hasted, even better, and you're better off Striking if Amiri won't attack every time (unless the enemy has resistance).

[Zman0]

Mark Seifter wrote:

The Assist action is at its best when there's another PC who does a significant amount more damage than you do on a hit, and especially if you think they will be making a fair number of attacks on the next turn. For instance, suppose you are a Strength 10, Dex 16 bard who has already used dirge of doom on the enemy and moved into a flank and are considering stabbing with your +1 rapier vs Assist on Amiri, and Amiri needs a 10 to hit the enemy on her first attack after Demoralize and flank (thanks to your nice Dex, you need a 10 also). A hit on a Strike would give you 7 damage, and a crit (on a 20) would give you 18.5 damage. On a successful Assist, you give Amiri a +2 (a crit gives more, but that cancels the possibility of -2 on a critical failure). If Amiri was going to swing 3 times, your Assist adds an expected 8/20 of Amiri's damage (+2 to all three attacks, and it adds +2 chance to crit on the first attack), and Amiri's damage with her +1 Large greatsword is 25. 8/20 of 25 is 10 damage, so you have a noticeably better expected result in Assisting Amiri than in attacking with your rapier. If Amiri is hasted, even better, and you're better off Striking if Amiri won't attack every time (unless the enemy has resistance).

Hey Mark. But, is Assist supposed to have the attack trait and suffer a MAP?

IMO it seems awfully niche as written, but without the attack trait it also becomes a solid alternative to an iterative attack. That kind of dynamic play would be useful. Even for a Fighter, giving up a -10 attack for a mediocre ally to get a circumstance bonus would be beneficial?

[Seannoss]

I will add that me sacrificing my attack and chance to be a hero to slightly add to someone else's damage isn't terribly fun. Also, I'm guessing by the weapons and stat arrays this character may have an equal chance of hitting as critically failing which the average/below average barbarian won't appreciate.

Also curious as you mentioned dirge and demoralize (which don't stack?) what are the checks frightened pertains to? I thought it would be everything listed on 290 but frightened also mentions saving throws which is on that page.

[Mark Seifter]

Seannoss wrote:

Also, I'm guessing by the weapons and stat arrays this character may have an equal chance of hitting as critically failing which the average/below average barbarian won't appreciate.

what are the checks frightened pertains to? I thought it would be everything listed on 290 but frightened also mentions saving throws which is on that page.

The chance of the bard hitting are calculated in there; since it's a finesse weapon, they are equal to the barbarian, which means the nat 1 is the only critical failure, cancelled out by the +4 from a natural 20 critical success.

The saves thing on frightened was something weird, as you're right it's everything (including AC). We have an update explaining that in this update.

[Knight Magenta]

Hooray I got a Mark response! Achievement get :)

That's a good use-case. Touche.

I guess I was disappointed by this incarnation of the assist action because the fighter has a "ranged assist" feat and I thought that it would be neat to do that with my 3rd action. Part of it is that I don't think that there are enough non-class-gated martial options for the third action; by my count there are:

• Raise Shield
• Intimidate
• Feint

I think its important for the base system to have enough options there so that the classes can then add twists on the baseline.

[Mark Seifter]

Knight Magenta wrote:

Hooray I got a Mark response! Achievement get :)

That's a good use-case. Touche.

I guess I was disappointed by this incarnation of the assist action because the fighter has a "ranged assist" feat and I thought that it would be neat to do that with my 3rd action. Part of it is that I don't think that there are enough non-class-gated martial options for the third action; by my count there are:

• Raise Shield
• Intimidate
• Feint

I think its important for the base system to have enough options there so that the classes can then add twists on the baseline.

An archer Assisting a barbarian is actually another potential example of the lower-damage improving high damage paradigm, and a fighter has a better chance of a crit for +4. Then again, a fighter's crit has some nice additions, like pinning them in place, so it's likely to be better when the foe has resistance, and not if the group doesn't have a big hitter. Even so, that specific feat perhaps could give a bonus on the Assist since it's for a character that might not normally be providing support and has specced to contribute more with Strikes, opens, and presses.

[Rules Artificer]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Knight Magenta wrote:

Hooray I got a Mark response! Achievement get :)

That's a good use-case. Touche.

I guess I was disappointed by this incarnation of the assist action because the fighter has a "ranged assist" feat and I thought that it would be neat to do that with my 3rd action. Part of it is that I don't think that there are enough non-class-gated martial options for the third action; by my count there are:

• Raise Shield
• Intimidate
• Feint

I think its important for the base system to have enough options there so that the classes can then add twists on the baseline.

An archer Assisting a barbarian is actually another potential example of the lower-damage improving high damage paradigm, and a fighter has a better chance of a crit for +4. Then again, a fighter's crit has some nice additions, like pinning them in place, so it's likely to be better when the foe has resistance, and not if the group doesn't have a big hitter. Even so, that specific feat perhaps could give a bonus on the Assist since it's for a character that might not normally be providing support and has specced to contribute more with Strikes, opens, and presses.

I think the issue remains that a Fighter using Ranged Assist on his last action after making 2 strikes that round already has a quite poor chance of actually succeeding, doesn't he? Because making an Assist is just as difficult as making a Strike.

[Zman0]

@Mark Seifter

Ok, I felt your example was pretty cherry picked to show a modest benefit from Assist. So, I crunched the numbers and made a spreadsheet.

Assist Action Relative Math

What is shows is that Assist is never worth it for expending a first attack unless you are benefiting a character that has ~3x your damage or greater, and only if they also have an base chance to hit of 50%.

I also ran the math for iterative attacks above, per my gut instinct.

On a second attack a poor combatant gains a damage boost by assisting only a very competent attacker that deals ~1.5x+ their damage. If they double your damage, Assisting any competent attacker provides a modest damage boost.

On a third attack even competent attackers gain a relatively very significant damage boost that is overall still modest in absolute terms. This is is naturally heavily moderated by opportunity cost for other actions.

In Summary

The Assist action as written is incredibly niche, to the point of being able to be ignored the vast majority of the time. I would go as far as to say Assist as written is broken. But, removing the Attack Trait and removing MAP from the calculations turns it into a viable tactic that does not deal excessive damage boosts. It occasionally allows for a third attack to be traded for the equivalent of a competent attacker's secondary attack, and only if the ally attacks three times. This is absolutely an improvement over Assist as written and should greatly enhance combat maneuvering by providing a more reliable modest tactic.

I implore you to remove the attack trait from Assist.

[Zwordsman]

I love the Assist Action.. but it doesn't really work. I tried to build for it with my Alchemist (human). but honestly the To Hit rate can't justify it..
I really wish it did not have the Multi Attack Penalty.. if it didn't I would be quite happy with spending 2 rounds to power up/protect my friend.
(hell in p1 i have a shield buidl with body guard doing just that).

I really hope it works better at latever levels. Human feat for +2 assist. Using darts. fighter archetype for Ranged Assist.

but so far as my low ability to tell anything can tell.. I really don't think I'll be succeeding very much. Typically so far when I miss, it isn't that i missed slightly. so that +2 doesn't feel like it wil help a ton.. Much less the MAP or if i was built as not a human. (and already all the races really scream be a human at low levels due to feats)

Really.. I want my Alchemist to fight like Aldeat from Rokka no Yuusha. and be able to set up attacks for the guy with big damage. so far though, not so much (plus splash restrictions for flatfooted)

I really wish it was not MAP. AND would target Touch AC. We aren't actually doing damage, as near as I can tell, so why should we have to actually hit AC ? We're deflecting blows, opening spaces, drawing their attention.. TOuch AC should be plenty enough for a scare! We aren't actually impacting to do this--or we would be doing damage.

[GinoA]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here, that "needs to do X times your damage" is applicable to *effective* damage. If you are have a hard time penetrating the target's resistance(s), the Assist action can be a much better use of your action(s).

Which, coincidentally, is one of the strongest uses of Aid Another on Attack in PF1.

[Zman0]

GinoA wrote:

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here, that "needs to do X times your damage" is applicable to *effective* damage. If you are have a hard time penetrating the target's resistance(s), the Assist action can be a much better use of your action(s).

Which, coincidentally, is one of the strongest uses of Aid Another on Attack in PF1.

Good point. That situation is essentially modeled in my spreadsheet for boosing someone who does many times your effective damage. That is why I made it use relative values, it makes it easier to assess scenarios. That is definitely a situation where Assist would be very very good, though it is in some ways even more cherry picked and unlikely to come up often.

One thing my calculations can't reliably model is how often you won't get the optimal three attacks from your ally. Even killing the enemy blows that out of the waters, as does stepping/striding to flank etc.

As written Assist just doesn't measure up. Without MAP its vialble and useful. Even in the example, which was pretty ideal and assumes three attacks from your allies, the net damage "dealt" by the Assist action was only 3pts higher than the character abyssmal normal attack. So, a 10 damage action, under ideal circumstances, when the average attack action is dealing significantly more damage already ie 10-15pts.

[Starfox]

I have used a DC on Assist actions based on the character you're assisting, not the opponent. So assisting someone with a +6 attack bonus would have DC 16, and assisting so someone's AC when they have AC 14 has DC 14. Really quick and simple, and works both combat and noncombat.

Edit: I used this in PF1 and other games, no in PF2 as the playtest should be run on playtest rules. But I don't think any of my players will use the PF2 Assist rule, ever.

[Seannoss]

I'm pretty sure this all ties in to the 'tight math' complaint about PF2. So even if the math shows that doing this raises someone's damage by 1 additional point over the assisting character's it becomes useful, balanced and doesn't throw off the game.

[Mudfoot]

But of course you need to break out the spreadsheet every turn to calculate whether Assist will add or subtract that 1 point of damage. If it's not clear that something's likely to help, people won't bother. And if nobody's going to bother, it's a waste of ink.

[Zman0]

Mudfoot wrote:

But of course you need to break out the spreadsheet every turn to calculate whether Assist will add or subtract that 1 point of damage. If it's not clear that something's likely to help, people won't bother. And if nobody's going to bother, it's a waste of ink.

That is why I suggest removing the MAP. You know it isn't really ever worth it on a first attack. Usually is close to a toss up on a second attack. And its a good use of a third attack for most. No spreadsheet necessary then.

[Seannoss]

Mudfoot wrote:

But of course you need to break out the spreadsheet every turn to calculate whether Assist will add or subtract that 1 point of damage. If it's not clear that something's likely to help, people won't bother. And if nobody's going to bother, it's a waste of ink.

I agree, and that was mostly my point. It doesn't feel good or fun so it won't be used.

[Githzilla]

So keep it in for those that would like to use it or take it out for those that don't like it and will not use it. I lean towards keeping it in since it really doesn't take up much space in the book.

[Draco18s]

Mudfoot wrote:

But of course you need to break out the spreadsheet every turn to calculate whether Assist will add or subtract that 1 point of damage. If it's not clear that something's likely to help, people won't bother. And if nobody's going to bother, it's a waste of ink.

Nah, not really. Adding a +2 to someone else's attack is basically 10% more expected damage per attack. Take their average on dice, then divide by 10.

Now compare that to your average damage on dice. Which number is bigger?

If it's theirs, something is terribly, terribly wrong with what you're doing (why are you, the wizard, Assist-attacking with a dagger rather than casting Shield?).

Mark quoted an 8/20ths number an I'm not entirely sure that that is right.

Pulling up T-Roll I get the average damage of a formula I already had written up (+12 vs. AC 20 with a +1 Greatsword) as 23.65 and a spread of 17.3 (dealing damage in excess of 70 points after 3 attacks dropped below a cumulative 1%, as did a successful hit and less than 9 damage).

Adding a +2 for the assist we get...30.05 damage and 13.1 spread or an increase of 5.4/20ths. The assister's attack would have had to have dealt less than 6.4 damage (on average) in order to have been better spent as an assist.

(Against AC 24: 13.85 -> 17.25, 4.9/20ths, 3.4 damage)
(Against AC 17: 33.25 -> 40.95, 4.6/20ths, 7.7 damage)

[Zwordsman]

A fun build, that I wish Assist worked better for..

Is actually a shuriken Alchemist (cause reload 0). Using fighter multi, you get Ranged Assist. Assuming I understand it right, would allow you to boost various characters' ACs or to Hit, at range~

So, the sound of the build is very cool, being able to cover the surprised caster/range, while helping the heavy hitter, hit harder.

Though, honestly, this might have more to do with the odd build space of Alchemists and wanting to do something other than swinging a weapon semi ineffectively. And my personal hate of the idea of quick silver mutagen.. despite seemingly being required for dex based Alchemist. Just too much health penalty

In practice this hasn't worked that well.. cause frankly Alchemists can't hit very well at all so the MAP really cuts into the ability to pull it of well. Though I probably should've started with highest dex second highest int, instead of the reverse.

If the MAP wasn't a thing, I think throwing a lightning bomb for flat footed for the heavy hitter + assist their AC/HIT would honestly make for a valid combat support alchemist.

[Gaterie]

Knight Magenta wrote:

Assist targets AC and has a critical failure case where it applies -2 to your ally. If you are expected to have a ~50% chance to hit, making an Assist attack with your 2nd or 3rd attack seems counterproductive. Yet to make giving up your primary attack worthwhile, your own damage output needs to be about 1 tenth of your ally.

I've already made a thread about that: assist is so bad, you should always assist your enemy. Shout "Aha! I was with the orcs the whole time!" at the end of every round and assist them to give them penalties. It's far more efficient than any debuff.

Assist is alos very useful when you're charmed/dominated. "Assist" your new master to debuff him.

Or I guess you can make Mark Seifter's computation every round, to see how many times assistis better than an attack. Probability exercises with some statistics on top of a Path 2 game, it sounds so much fun. Or you can do your homework and compute some matrix inversions or something instead of playing Path 2, it sounds even more fun.

Spoiler:

Hint: in a real situation, assist will never be useful.

You can create an artificial situation where it is useful, using a level 8 giant totem barbarian who hits on a 10 and is supported by a Str 10 Dex 16 bard and... Or you can just accept it doesn't work and it will never be fixed.

[Excaliburproxy]

Gaterie wrote:

Knight Magenta wrote:

Assist targets AC and has a critical failure case where it applies -2 to your ally. If you are expected to have a ~50% chance to hit, making an Assist attack with your 2nd or 3rd attack seems counterproductive. Yet to make giving up your primary attack worthwhile, your own damage output needs to be about 1 tenth of your ally.

I've already made a thread about that: assist is so bad, you should always assist your enemy. Shout "Aha! I was with the orcs the whole time!" at the end of every round and assist them to give them penalties. It's far more efficient than any debuff.

Assist is alos very useful when you're charmed/dominated. "Assist" your new master to debuff him.

Or I guess you can make Mark Seifter's computation every round, to see how many times assistis better than an attack. Probability exercises with some statistics on top of a Path 2 game, it sounds so much fun. Or you can do your homework and compute some matrix inversions or something instead of playing Path 2, it sounds even more fun.

** spoiler omitted **

I thought about using assist one time when my cleric was maintaining a summon and bless at the same time with my summon-less cleric. The monster flew out of melee with me before I got the chance, though.

There are probably a bunch of corner cases where a +2 can make a lot of a difference, though. If your fighter friend has certain strike, that +2 with increase his expected damage by 20% for all their attacks rather than just the first one (since the margin between failure and critical failure will also matter). I could also maybe see someone telling their animal companion to aid another at higher levels rather than attacking.

[Tholomyes]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Alternatively, the DC of the Assist check could be the target's AC minus 5, instead of just the target's full AC.

I did some back of the envelope math, and I think this fixes it. Basically, assist, assuming a martially oriented ally, gives roughly 30% extra average damage on a success, 25% average reduction in damage on a critical failure, and about 65% extra damage on a critical hit (assuming 3 attacks), if you normally have a 50% chance to hit, this suggestion, on the third attack, works out to 5% CS, 20% S, 50% F, 25% CF, or about a 3% damage increase on average, which says to me that it's worthwhile in certain situations, but not in others, which I think is a good place for a tactic available to everyone to sit.

[ErichAD]

Math aside, the chance of trying to help your ally turning into impeding them is just going to make players annoyed at one another. The slapstick "I don't think I could survive any more of your help" situation isn't going to be fun.

[Zwordsman]

Quick question....

So. I wonder if it would be somewhat useful for a Alchemist with fighter multiclass.

They pick up the lv 1 Furious Focus and Ranged Assist feats.

Furious Focus is used on their primary attack, lets say, lightning flask to give flat foot+ a little daamge. This won't count against MAP.
Then second attack, Ranged Assist attempt. They are human with that Assist boosting feat. so +2 to that attempt on top of it. Then last action probably being another assist attempt for AC helping. this with MAP.

-2 to their ac for faltfoot +2 to your rolls for assist. so effectively 4 difference assuming the bomb hits (honestly these days that is kind of iffy)

Would that actually be helpful for an ally with a big weapon?
(in the case of two characters I am thinking of. My alchemist has shuriken. my cohort has a d12 two handed weapon))

Sadly I dno't think Furious Focus works with Assist Action right? As it specifies strike.. Assist does have "attack" but I don't think it qualifies as a strike... Does it?
Assist specifies "melee attack" not "melee strike" so does that mean it can not work?
..cause honestly I would love if it would work.

[shroudb]

Zwordsman wrote:

Quick question....

So. I wonder if it would be somewhat useful for a Alchemist with fighter multiclass.

They pick up the lv 1 Furious Focus and Ranged Assist feats.

Furious Focus is used on their primary attack, lets say, lightning flask to give flat foot+ a little daamge. This won't count against MAP.
Then second attack, Ranged Assist attempt. They are human with that Assist boosting feat. so +2 to that attempt on top of it. Then last action probably being another assist attempt for AC helping. this with MAP.

-2 to their ac for faltfoot +2 to your rolls for assist. so effectively 4 difference assuming the bomb hits (honestly these days that is kind of iffy)

Would that actually be helpful for an ally with a big weapon?
(in the case of two characters I am thinking of. My alchemist has shuriken. my cohort has a d12 two handed weapon))

Sadly I dno't think Furious Focus works with Assist Action right? As it specifies strike.. Assist does have "attack" but I don't think it qualifies as a strike... Does it?
Assist specifies "melee attack" not "melee strike" so does that mean it can not work?
..cause honestly I would love if it would work.

Furious focus doesn't work like that.

It's a Press attack, so you can only use it on an iterative attack, not the first one.

And what it does is on a failure to hit it basically doesn't count as an attack.

So, something like:
1)Attack
2)Furious focus attack at -5
If (2) hits, 3) 3rd attack at - 10
If (2) misses, 3) 3rd attack at - 5

[Zwordsman]

ah. I totally didn't notice the press trait.
Still not used to them traits.
Well, also need to stop thinking of things at 2am.
Bummer..

Currently furious focus doesn't seem very useful sadly.

nor assist of course.

well, still might attempt the L.Botttle +assist thing.
but so much of this damn game feels completely RNG dice roll that it'll likely never go well

[John Mechalas]

It seems almost pointless to me that "Assist" is rolled against the enemy's AC. So now when you're facing a monster with an AC that's too high for you to hit, you're useless. Time to spam the fight with "Demoralize" actions and hope one of them will stick. :P (At least a critical failure on that won't result in a Three Stooges routine.)

It was maybe too easy in PF1 to give your buddy that +2, but there's a lot of air between "hit AC10" and "hit enemy AC".

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Alternatively, the DC of the Assist check could be the target's AC minus 5, instead of just the target's full AC.

For example.

[Draco18s]

Zwordsman wrote:

ah. I totally didn't notice the press trait.

Still not used to them traits.

Don't worry, only half the traits in the game actually mean anything. The other half tell you things that might come up, but probably aren't relevant most of the time (like Fire and Force: only matters if a beastie is immune/resistant/weak).

There's a thread about this

[StratoNexus]

John Mechalas wrote:

It seems almost pointless to me that "Assist" is rolled against the enemy's AC. So now when you're facing a monster with an AC that's too high for you to hit, you're useless. Time to spam the fight with "Demoralize" actions and hope one of them will stick. :P (At least a critical failure on that won't result in a Three Stooges routine.)

While I agree Assist could us a buff, the concept of facing a monster with an AC that's too high for you to hit is much more 1e than 2e.

It seems likely most characters will never be as inept at attacking as you could be in 1e. This is due to a combination of many factors, no more 1/2 BAB, Finesse as a weapon trait instead of a feat, no Weapon Focus, etc.

[Zwordsman]

Really ? I truly feel inept with hitting in this version... but so much of it relies on RNG dice rolls. so it could just be the lucky really.
I mean.. I have crit failed more than I've actually succeeded in playtesting so far.

though I think a fighter would've only been +2 more hit than my character maybe..
so i doubt that much difference..

but. i think it is plenty possible still to have a guy with AC too high for you to hit with any reliablilty.

[John Mechalas]

In Lost Star, Drakus has an 18 AC. With +4 ability bonuses, that's a 35% chance to hit on your first strike. Pazio seems to be compensating for the new attack progression by boosting AC's.

[Anguish]

Assist actually turned out really helpful tonight in our playtest session, and I wouldn't have caught it were it not for Mark's post. I simply didn't notice that the bonus works for all your ally's attacks.

Playing a bard, I was able to cast inspire courage to let my allies be better at playing their characters, followed by one attack to Assist our main damage-dealer, netting that paladin +3 to all his attacks. That left me with an extra action to Concentrate on wishing I'd just played a martial instead.

Sorry, sarcasm tongue-in-cheek. Honestly, it did feel bard-ish. Boost the efforts of others. That was cool. The problem is that the above tactic was generally better than any other option available to me, and that tactic was available - and unchanged - from 1st level. Which is to say... my 1st-level bard and 7th-level bard play identically. And 9th-level is going to be the same. And higher level at first read of the book... looks like the same two actions are going to be my best choices most of the time.

[Quandary]

I'm curious of the experience of non-specialists using Aid to Skill checks. I mean, some checks everbody will need to make, but the playtests complaining incompetent PCs always getting erroneous results is absurd, they don't need to make those checks themselves, and the Aid DCs seem potentially easier and thus low/no chance of Crit Fail and higher chance of main Lore character succeeding (or simply not CritFailing).

EDIT: Actually is there reason to say Aid is even exclusive with making Recall Knowledge yourself? If multiple characters are decent, they could each make separate (sequential) Recall checks with everybody Aiding them. Honestly, that probably is not good for balance, but it doesn't seem obviously wrong AFAIK. ???

[Knight Magenta]

Quandary wrote:

I'm curious of the experience of non-specialists using Aid to Skill checks. I mean, some checks everbody will need to make, but the playtests complaining incompetent PCs always getting erroneous results is absurd, they don't need to make those checks themselves, and the Aid DCs seem potentially easier and thus low/no chance of Crit Fail and higher chance of main Lore character succeeding (or simply not CritFailing).

EDIT: Actually is there reason to say Aid is even exclusive with making Recall Knowledge yourself? If multiple characters are decent, they could each make separate (sequential) Recall checks with everybody Aiding them. Honestly, that probably is not good for balance, but it doesn't seem obviously wrong AFAIK. ???

Aid provides a circumstance bonus and thus does not stack with itself. I'm also not sure what action you could take to aid on knowledge...

[Zwordsman]

Aid is easier to pull off than Assist indeed. (although different thread I suppose)
but they don't stack,

and in part 1, I don't think my thievery check would've ever made it, in the 11 attempts I made, with a +2. It isn't like my skill check was particularly low. +4. Even specifically got low AC so I could do it without penalty. but I never once rolled more than 10.
Yeah that is crazy bad luck for me. But. with how much the game relies on RNG Rolls now instead of being able to specialize in it does tend to make the situation of the Dice far more important.

I suppose though, had I been a Rogue-they start with expert proficiency and would've had 1 more Dex(instead of int). so those +2 aid would've made a difference at that point so the total bonus would've been +8 or something.

Aiding on recall knowledge isn't that hard I don't think.
person A starts muttering trying to remember person B aides them by listing off what they happen to remember about the subject trying to spark off person A's memory

[Quandary]

Knight Magenta wrote:

Aid provides a circumstance bonus and thus does not stack with itself.

OK, but assuming two "bad" PCs, if they BOTH Aid then you have higher chance to get Aid bonus assuming there is chance for Aid to fail... And if they can Crit Fail, there is chance for other Aid to negate that.

Quote:

I'm also not sure what action you could take to aid on knowledge...

I don't know, I would describe it as butting in, pointing out details and suggesting implications of them, etc. Jogging people's memory, which even "wrong conclusions" could ironically point way to correct conclusion for skilled person able to remind themself fo what is/isn't relevant. Not just knowledge checks, imagine standing around yelling tips to a guy climbing a wall, etc.

Just two skilled characters could plausibly Aid each other while also (sequentially) making their own Recall checks, i.e. a productive conversation amongst the learned, more effective then if they were given question alone. Probably does deserve own thread, but seems legit re: dynamic of these checks in larger group, and prevalence of "bad" characters actually failing/CritFailing these.

[RealAlchemy]

Knight Magenta wrote:

Quandary wrote:

I'm curious of the experience of non-specialists using Aid to Skill checks. I mean, some checks everbody will need to make, but the playtests complaining incompetent PCs always getting erroneous results is absurd, they don't need to make those checks themselves, and the Aid DCs seem potentially easier and thus low/no chance of Crit Fail and higher chance of main Lore character succeeding (or simply not CritFailing).

EDIT: Actually is there reason to say Aid is even exclusive with making Recall Knowledge yourself? If multiple characters are decent, they could each make separate (sequential) Recall checks with everybody Aiding them. Honestly, that probably is not good for balance, but it doesn't seem obviously wrong AFAIK. ???

Aid provides a circumstance bonus and thus does not stack with itself. I'm also not sure what action you could take to aid on knowledge...

Aid on knowledge :

"Who's that nobleman over there? I know that coat of arms, but not sure where I know it from."

"Looks like a Baronial device from northeastern Taldor to me, but I don't know all the Baronies in that area."

"Now I can place it! It's Baron Burns, and you're right, he is from northeast Taldor!"

[Luke Styer]

John Mechalas wrote:

It was maybe too easy in PF1 to give your buddy that +2, but there's a lot of air between "hit AC10" and "hit enemy AC".

Was it, really, though? I rarely saw PCs using Aid Another in PF1 — only when they almost couldn’t hit, and even then it was oftenbecuase, as GM, I’d pipe in with “Have you considered Aid Another?” It has always seemed to me like a great way to let a PC who isn’t great in combat contribute. I’d hate to see it made obsolete in the new edition.

[Zwordsman]

I've only used Aid Another in P1 on my Oracle of Life who is designed to stack Aid Another bonuses and uses Body Guard feat.

So he can help our heavy hitter hit hard while guarding them or others.

With the current P2 Assist rules applying to All attacks that round (if I remember right?) means that they are worth considerably more than Aid Another in P1's. Effectively they're closer to Bodyguard + Aid another attack.

P2's Aid (not Assist) I feel is worth a little less, but that had more to do with how skills worked in that version. I think Aid is ok as it currently stands.

but Assist vs AC is a bit too inconsistent. TAC maybe.