A lot likely depends on the situation and what you have available to use as reactions. What other reactions does your character have? A fighter, for instance, likely wants to use their reaction for a AoO should one present itself, but a lot of other classes might not have much use for a reaction -- especially at low level.
The big question, which isn't explicitly stated in the rules, but which is probably implied by the words "attack roll" though not actual attack, is whether or not the aid check counts toward MAP. If it doesn't (and it's not crystal clear to me) then that third action plus reaction is probably a lot more likely to land than say a third attack would (at -10). More to the point though, you might be able to use that Aid Action to distract the enemy through performance, bluff, etc. That definitely would not trigger MAP, though its up to the GM whether or not it could work, and I would imagine that a lot might depend on just what you are fighting. But think of it this way, a bluff attempt may well be far more likely to succeed in giving an ally +1 than attacking at -10, or even -5.
That said though, I would still say that Demoralize is normally a better option, and is a good reason to a) not completely dump Cha and b) to invest a bit in Intimidate.
Depends say the barbarian is wanting to disable a magical hazard with athletics during a combat. You can't do it because it requires master and above and you only have athletics, there is a battle going on so you stride next to the device, make an attack and ready to help the barbarian.
This cost you one action and one reaction you may not have used. You have almodt guarantee a +1 and have a good chance at giving a +2.
Could also say that both characters could attempt the check but this time the DC is higher, you don't have a primary attribute in the skill and are only trained. It takes 3 actions to disable, is it worth spending 3 actions for a low chance, or spending 1 action to help the party memeber with a much greater chance.
Or how about checks to make impressions and the like where you get one chance.
Maybe you are aiding an attack action that will do WAYYYYYY more than you attacking thanks to a weakness, stacked spells or something similar. (My party sorcerer was in that space last saturday, an enemy that was immune to all their spell options, had a higher resistance than their physical options and was immune to their demoralize)
The biggest question marks about aid is how the GM determines the DC and how many "specialists" are available to aid the check.
While a +1 here and there is not too bad on its own for maximum efficiency it really comes down how easy it is to pass the check with a critical success and/or having master or legendary proficiency yourself.
Regarding DC I have seen everything in between just using DC20 and having to roll versus DC X in order to aid versus DC X.
And regarding availability of proficiency levels it probably is easier to have at least one master (fighter) aiding another melee (e.g. raging barbarian) in comparison to having one master in thievery aiding another master or legendary thievery character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot likely depends on the situation and what you have available to use as reactions. What other reactions does your character have? A fighter, for instance, likely wants to use their reaction for a AoO should one present itself, but a lot of other classes might not have much use for a reaction -- especially at low level.
The big question, which isn't explicitly stated in the rules, but which is probably implied by the words "attack roll" though not actual attack, is whether or not the aid check counts toward MAP. If it doesn't (and it's not crystal clear to me) then that third action plus reaction is probably a lot more likely to land than say a third attack would (at -10). More to the point though, you might be able to use that Aid Action to distract the enemy through performance, bluff, etc. That definitely would not trigger MAP, though its up to the GM whether or not it could work, and I would imagine that a lot might depend on just what you are fighting. But think of it this way, a bluff attempt may well be far more likely to succeed in giving an ally +1 than attacking at -10, or even -5.
That said though, I would still say that Demoralize is normally a better option, and is a good reason to a) not completely dump Cha and b) to invest a bit in Intimidate.
Aid is a Reaction that takes place outside your turn. It cannot suffer MAP.
Aid is a Reaction that takes place outside your turn. It cannot suffer MAP.
Thank you for the clarification. I wasn't sure since a) it Also requires you to spend an action on your turn, in addition to the reaction, and b) does say "make an attack roll", which is admittedly different than "Strike".
All that said, I would definitely say using Aid instead of a third attack definitely makes sense unless you otherwise have a really good reaction to use. Though it could also be argued that moving away from the monster is also a good idea for that third action.
|
Then, using an action and your reaction you give an ally +1? Two actions for a +1 bonus?
It's actually 2 actions and a reaction: Ready takes 2 actions. So it's bad most of the times, unless the one who aids has literally nothing else to do.
It could be useful with minions (Animal Companion or Familiar): the master uses only 1 action to command the minion, while the minion uses its 2 actions to Ready to Aid.
This thread is gold. Thanks for the Post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then, using an action and your reaction you give an ally +1? Two actions for a +1 bonus?It's actually 2 actions and a reaction: Ready takes 2 actions. So it's bad most of the times, unless the one who aids has literally nothing else to do.
It could be useful with minions (Animal Companion or Familiar): the master uses only 1 action to command the minion, while the minion uses its 2 actions to Ready to Aid.
Not ready action my dude, aid. "To use this reaction, you must first prepare to help, usually by using an action during your turn. "
Aiding is almost always superior to making a third attack at full MAP, and becomes a really stellar option at higher levels. A +1 bonus in PF2 is well worth a single action and a reaction, especially when applied to your friendly martials best attack for extra accuracy and crit chance. Chasing +1's is a top tier strategy that is better than it appears when you start playing.
Whats even better is when you get to the level where it is +2, or better because you're critically succeeding regularly.
My party I run for's Halfling Bard took Helpful Halfling, and assists on pretty much all rolls for +4. Its gross.
Its worth keeping in the forefront of your tactics against higher level enemies especially, where it helps rapidly lower your target number to hit against their higher AC values.
Sure. It can be useful for things like Athletics and Thievery or Diplomacy. I don't think about in terms of actual time. I think about it in terms of actions and narrative. It takes an action or two actions to do something and someone readies an aid to use as a reaction, then they do it and apply the bonus. It's been more useful in non-combat situations than combat.
Aiding is almost always superior to making a third attack at full MAP, and becomes a really stellar option at higher levels. A +1 bonus in PF2 is well worth a single action and a reaction, especially when applied to your friendly martials best attack for extra accuracy and crit chance. Chasing +1's is a top tier strategy that is better than it appears when you start playing.
Whats even better is when you get to the level where it is +2, or better because you're critically succeeding regularly.
My party I run for's Halfling Bard took Helpful Halfling, and assists on pretty much all rolls for +4. Its gross.
Its worth keeping in the forefront of your tactics against higher level enemies especially, where it helps rapidly lower your target number to hit against their higher AC values.
A bard is not the best in my opinion.
To forgo composition + spell ( 3 actions total ) and eventually some reaction ( if the character has one ) could be ok in some situations, but most of the time I'd go with spell + composition.
That's low level thinking. Well, low-ish level thinking.
For the entire last book of the AP, he's had Eternal Composition, allowing him to use Inspire Courage as a quickened action. So he can still cast a spell and Aid if he wants.
For 16-17, a lot of times it was actually better to Scare to Death (saves a spell, almost as good), Aid, and use a composition Cantrip.
Prior to that, Lingering Composition is a thing.
Bards don't really have that big of an action issue :)
If you can manage not to cast spells and be even more efficient on high level encounter, I think something could be "slightly off".
Yeah, it is understandable that bards are the real deal in terms of supporting + healing + anything else, but I expect my party to be obliterate if somebody renounce to use high level spells for an aid action + a scare to death.
As a DM I'd double the enemies on the field if i were to see such a situation.
Scare to Death only gets 'better' as you add more enemies who aren't immune to it :D
That said, that direction isn't really on topic, other than to note that I don't think Bards have action issues that prevent them from aiding for the most part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can manage not to cast spells and be even more efficient on high level encounter, I think something could be "slightly off".
Yeah, it is understandable that bards are the real deal in terms of supporting + healing + anything else, but I expect my party to be obliterate if somebody renounce to use high level spells for an aid action + a scare to death.
As a DM I'd double the enemies on the field if i were to see such a situation.
Scare to Death only gets 'better' as you add more enemies who aren't immune to it :D
That said, that direction isn't really on topic, other than to note that I don't think Bards have action issues that prevent them from aiding for the most part.
The point is that apart some minor encounter the aid/reaction + composition + scare to death ( which is lvl 15+ ) would not be affordable.
And, given the fact you would be spending 2 actions on a spell, if you were to decide between:
- Composition
- Scare to death
- AidI presume that "most of the time" anybody'd go with the former.
Just this ( I know that "sometimes" an encounter where there's no need for spells can occour ).
Technically, Aid is better more reliably than Scare to Death. StD is generally a Frightened 2 (-2 AC) on a normal success, whereas Aid at the same level is likely a +3 bonus with a lower chance of 'failure' (IE, normal success and +1) but also eats your reaction.
The key is, during that level period very few spells are better than Frightened 2, Inspire Courage/Heroics, Aid +3/4 all in one turn.
And thats fine. Thats a fine turn.
So it sounds like there's a few edge cases, but you're usually best off doing something you're trained in if you can.
I wouldn't necessarily call them edge cases, though it really does depend on the character. I mean sure, fighters and champs generally have good uses for their reactions, as do Barbarians after 6th level. So in those cases, yeah, odds are decent you won't want to be using Aid very often even if that third attack is unlikely to hit (you're still probably better off just stepping away from the creature than attacking a third time, but that's a different issue).
Other characters though might not really have anything to do with their reactions much of the time and that changes the calculus a bit. Now it comes down to what can they do with their three actions. Attacking a third time is almost always a bad idea (better to step away or to aid). For example, at level 1 you probably have a +7 to attack. Lets say you are fighting a creature with a 17 AC. First attack you hit on a 10. Second attack, you hit on a 15. Third attack you need a 20. By contrast, if you Aid on that last action, you only need a 13 to render aid and thereby increase the odds the next guy crits.
Now as I said, stepping away is likely better though since if you don't have a reaction, you probably are not a class that's designed to take too many hits. Even Barbarians are going to get hit a lot which cancels out their hit points fairly quick if not stepping away. But, If you instead Aid on the second action (still only need a 13) and then step away on the third, you may have better overall luck. It really just depends on the party makeup, etc. Its just hard to give a flat definitive, all-encompassing answer.
In short, first look to see what, if anything, you can do with your reactions to begin with. If your reaction is potentially better than Aid, then that pretty much ends the debate. If its not, then you have to look at the other options.
So it sounds like there's a few edge cases, but you're usually best off doing something you're trained in if you can.
I see way more often players do things where they should have spent their action and reaction aiding instead.
The most common is making a second or third attack against a target that they know has bad odds to hit when they could have provided a bonus to an allies first, most accurate attack.
That, or casting a Cantrip when demoralize plus aid was an option - etc.
Other times people move when it wasnt really ideal at the time.
I dont recall seeing anyone ever aid and it was a bad call. Sometimes it doesn't work out, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea when they did it.
Aid action in combat, edge case useful unless built for or at later levels and creative, outside of combat commonly useful (every session I run, always baffled why players forget it when maximising their capabilities).
Aiding is almost always superior to making a third attack at full MAP, and becomes a really stellar option at higher levels. A +1 bonus in PF2 is well worth a single action and a reaction, especially when applied to your friendly martials best attack for extra accuracy and crit chance. Chasing +1's is a top tier strategy that is better than it appears when you start playing.
Whats even better is when you get to the level where it is +2, or better because you're critically succeeding regularly.
My party I run for's Halfling Bard took Helpful Halfling, and assists on pretty much all rolls for +4. Its gross.
Its worth keeping in the forefront of your tactics against higher level enemies especially, where it helps rapidly lower your target number to hit against their higher AC values.
Could you take Adoptive Ancestry > Cooperative Nature to get +4 on the Aid Check in the first place further boosting the chance of a crit success?
What is more if you can do this the idea of a halfling being raised by humans to be cooperative is not exactly and absurd notion that defies logic (I am looking at those early suggestions of all the champions adopted by Gnomes)
Would people allow a character to use an attack to Aid a ranged character with an attack role? Treating it as some kind of distraction either a distracting swing or shot?
It is interesting how there is mention of the DC sometimes being lower but it never increasing with level. I guess to simulate improved teamwork over time?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would people allow a character to use an attack to Aid a ranged character with an attack role? Treating it as some kind of distraction either a distracting swing or shot?
This fits with what is written in the book, and I'd allow it.
There's a feat in the book for fighters that becomes redundant though.
I'm not sure where helpful halfling is from. There is Intuitive Cooperation that only gives a +2.
Archives of Nethys confirms Lost Omens: Character Guide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would people allow a character to use an attack to Aid a ranged character with an attack role? Treating it as some kind of distraction either a distracting swing or shot?This fits with what is written in the book, and I'd allow it.
There's a feat in the book for fighters that becomes redundant though.
Yes I don’t understand that fighter feat as nothing in the aid description says it is only for melee attacks
I was but I am not sure why one should be a feat and the other not
Unless it is the idea that the person doing it in this case is going to have a really good chance of aiding and be “safe” whilst doing in due to have fighter proficiency and being at range ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would people allow a character to use an attack to Aid a ranged character with an attack role? Treating it as some kind of distraction either a distracting swing or shot?This fits with what is written in the book, and I'd allow it.
There's a feat in the book for fighters that becomes redundant though.
I think that goes the other way.
Lanathar was asking about using Aid to benefit a ranged attack roll (i.e. you wave your hands in the target's face and the archer gets a better chance to hit), while the fighter feat enables you to use Aid with a ranged weapon (i.e. you send an arrow zipping past the target's head, and your ally exploits that distraction for a better chance to hit).
My point was as he also noted, there's not really anything in the description of aiding that makes either of those unreasonable by default.
Aid says, "You must explain to the GM exactly how you’re trying to help, and they determine whether you can Aid your ally."
So assuming neither of us knows the Assisting Shot feat exists, it seems as though its totally non-controversial I can say, "GM, can I snap a quick shot off at the enemy to distract him so my buddy can take advantage?" and for the GM to agree.
Thus, it seems as though all Assisting Shot does is remove GM permission from the equasion.
I suspect it was written under the assumption that Aid is more restricted than it ended up in the final release of the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like Assisting Shot is supposed to be a Ranged Strike that also counts as the preparatory Action for Aid. I can't come up with any other reason for the line "An Assisting Shot uses ammunition and incurs penalties just like any other attack.", as it doesn't have the Attack Trait, so how could it affect or incur MAP?
It's just really really poorly written.
I believe Assisting Shot was based on some unwritten assumptions. Advice on running Aid in the GMG says that "Similarly, a character usually needs to be next to their ally or a foe to Aid the ally in attacking the foe."
So I suspect the assumption (not binding rule) was that aiding attacks at range would usually only be allowed to work with particular circumstances to permit it, instead of always avaliable tactics like "I fire off a distraction shot" or "I try to bluff that there's someone else who's maneuvered behind the enemy to aid with Deception" or the like.
As for traits (since Aid in general not having the Attack trait has come up a few times), Aid has whatever traits are determined to be appropriate based on what you are doing to aid.
I believe Assisting Shot was based on some unwritten assumptions. Advice on running Aid in the GMG says that "Similarly, a character usually needs to be next to their ally or a foe to Aid the ally in attacking the foe."
So I suspect the assumption (not binding rule) was that aiding attacks at range would usually only be allowed to work with particular circumstances to permit it, instead of always avaliable tactics like "I fire off a distraction shot" or "I try to bluff that there's someone else who's maneuvered behind the enemy to aid with Deception" or the like.
As for traits (since Aid in general not having the Attack trait has come up a few times), Aid has whatever traits are determined to be appropriate based on what you are doing to aid.
I was referring to the fact that Assisting Shot doesn't have the Attack Trait.
Whether or not Aid has the Attack Trait is irrelevant. It's a Reaction outside your turn, and those never suffer MAP.
It seems like Assisting Shot is supposed to be a Ranged Strike that also counts as the preparatory Action for Aid. I can't come up with any other reason for the line "An Assisting Shot uses ammunition and incurs penalties just like any other attack.", as it doesn't have the Attack Trait, so how could it affect or incur MAP?
It's just really really poorly written.
I have been operating under the assumption that piece of text in Assisting Shot is meaning to say that you are firing a shot as part of your Aid reaction so ammunition is used - and the penalties it is speaking of are not MAP, but anything else which would affect affect an attack roll made in the particular circumstances of the Aid roll.
However, I can see how you'd arrive at the conclusion that you have.
Its the same way that if an Alchemist said they wanted to aid someone by setting off a thunderstone, I might not make them make a strike with a thunderstone but they'd still have to expend it when preparing to Aid.
I assume its just being clear in Assisting Shot that you are in fact, firing a shot with your bow even though you don't make an attack.
I am more wondering whether a martial character can use a melee aid attempt to give a ranged character a bonus to hit (the waving hand in the face mentioned above)
I'd be inclined to allow it.
2E so far (in my very brief actually playing experience) has mellowed me as a GM. There are so few ways to game the system that I don't have to constantly be on edge for the "gotcha" that a player can pull out in 1E. And those happened a lot...
In their absence I tend to be more lenient than I ever was