|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I am the GM in a campaign and I recently made a controversial ruling in my campaign and I wanted to run it by the board. While I realize the GM can make any rules that he wants, my campaign is strictly RAW, including errata, FAQs with postings by Paizo game designers before going into interpretations and house rules for things not covered in the rules.
The ruling was for an Aid Another Diplomacy check and uses the following rules.
1) 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.)" The Aiding character had to make a Diplomacy check vs DC 10. This part was non-controversial.
2) Diplomacy Check Influence Attitude. "If you fail the check by 4 or less, the character’s attitude toward you is unchanged. If you fail by 5 or more, the character’s attitude toward you is decreased by one step." The Aiding Character rolled a Diplomacy check of 3, which failed the DC 10 check by 5 or more, therefore the Indifferent NPC became Unfriendly (towards both characters since they were making the skill check cooperatively). The principal character was still allowed to Influence Attitude towards the NPC based upon the new Unfriendly attitude.
I believe my ruling accurately represents the rules as written however my players threw a tantrum and one even quit the game over this ruling. Just wondering what the forum thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not go with this ruling and don't think it's RAW. He's rolling to aid, not to do the work himself, but I don't completely disagree with it.
I feel there needs to be some symmetry between risk and gain. On the normal check that's improving vs lowering the attitude. On the aid anither check, that would be a -2 for every 5 the check failed by imo.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rule you cited (about penelty for rolling low) applies only to Diplomacy checks made to influence attitude, not any other Diplomacy checks. The aiding character was making a Diplomacy Check to Aid Another, that is to give a +2 bonus to the primary character. Although it uses the same kind of roll, it's a different action, and there should be no penalty for a low result, at least by RAW.
|
That's how I would run it too. Just having a bunch of people jump in on a conversation doesn't make you more persuasive and can hurt your chances.
As for the players, wow, that's just silly. This ruling only affects them if they don't invest in Diplomancy, which is kinda what it's for, stopping large groups of characters from brute forcing certain skill checks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be unhappy with this ruling, I do not believe it accurately reflects RAW.
That said, I understand a GM taking that view and whilst I might raise an eyebrow and add a "really?" I think walking away is possibly a bit of an over-reaction.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rule you cited (about penelty for rolling low) applies only to Diplomacy checks made to influence attitude, not any other Diplomacy checks. The aiding character was making a Diplomacy Check to Aid Another, that is to give a +2 bonus to the primary character. Although it uses the same kind of roll, it's a different action, and there should be no penalty for a low result, at least by RAW.
Adjoint has it correct.
Just as doing a Diplomacy check to Gather Information doesn't have a risk of causing bad reactions, this should not.
If you are so concerned about the people who have Charisma of 7 doing this, consider the successes as them actually behaving rather than creeping the people out by their very presence.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that your ruling makes sense, but I'm not sure that it's RAW. For RAW, I agree with Adjoint.
I think the most important question was if your player knew this rule before attempting the Aid Another. There are many games in which an Aid Another is a no-lose situation: best-case, you provide the +2, worst-case, you don't hurt your diplomat's chances. Players should be clear in advance if they can actually make things worse by Aiding Another.
On that thought, ought failed Aid Anothers to provide penalties to other checks? Can a failed Aid Another in combat make a PC's armor class or attack bonus lower? Can a failed Knowledge check to Aid Another have the effect that the less knowledgeable character persuades the more of 'fake news' about the subject? Can someone attempting to Aid Another to Swim actually end up drowning them?
I think, overall, discouraging people from getting involved in parts of the game (i.e., a barbarian in negotiations) isn't ideal from a player perspective: "Okay, I've got a 7 Cha so rather than risk alienating every villager in this town, I'll go watch TV until you guys are done talking to the Council."
|
|
I think, overall, discouraging people from getting involved in parts of the game (i.e., a barbarian in negotiations) isn't ideal from a player perspective: "Okay, I've got a 7 Cha so rather than risk alienating every villager in this town, I'll go watch TV until you guys are done talking to the Council."
That would be on the player of the barbarian then for dumping their CHA down to 7. So yeah only really rare circumstances should cause them to try to help out in negotiations, unless they make up for it by investing in Diplomancy.
To put it another way, person A and B are talking. Person B's friend jumps in and shouts F%%& you!" at person A. That's not going to endear person A to any of person B'a group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think, overall, discouraging people from getting involved in parts of the game (i.e., a barbarian in negotiations) isn't ideal from a player perspective: "Okay, I've got a 7 Cha so rather than risk alienating every villager in this town, I'll go watch TV until you guys are done talking to the Council."That would be on the player of the barbarian then for dumping their CHA down to 7. So yeah only really rare circumstances should cause them to try to help out in negotiations, unless they make up for it by investing in Diplomancy.
To put it another way, person A and B are talking. Person B's friend jumps in and shouts F!#! you!" at person A. That's not going to endear person A to any of person B'a group.
Sounds like B's friend just attempted an intimidate check, not a diplomacy check.
|
|
Sounds like B's friend just attempted an intimidate check, not a diplomacy check.I think, overall, discouraging people from getting involved in parts of the game (i.e., a barbarian in negotiations) isn't ideal from a player perspective: "Okay, I've got a 7 Cha so rather than risk alienating every villager in this town, I'll go watch TV until you guys are done talking to the Council."That would be on the player of the barbarian then for dumping their CHA down to 7. So yeah only really rare circumstances should cause them to try to help out in negotiations, unless they make up for it by investing in Diplomancy.
To put it another way, person A and B are talking. Person B's friend jumps in and shouts F!#! you!" at person A. That's not going to endear person A to any of person B'a group.
Or rolled a 1 on top of their 7 CHA :3
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or rolled a 1 on top of their 7 CHA :3Sounds like B's friend just attempted an intimidate check, not a diplomacy check.I think, overall, discouraging people from getting involved in parts of the game (i.e., a barbarian in negotiations) isn't ideal from a player perspective: "Okay, I've got a 7 Cha so rather than risk alienating every villager in this town, I'll go watch TV until you guys are done talking to the Council."That would be on the player of the barbarian then for dumping their CHA down to 7. So yeah only really rare circumstances should cause them to try to help out in negotiations, unless they make up for it by investing in Diplomancy.
To put it another way, person A and B are talking. Person B's friend jumps in and shouts F!#! you!" at person A. That's not going to endear person A to any of person B'a group.
The last line bugs me. Rolling a natural 1 on anything other than an attack or save is NOT an automatic failure. Too many GMs with insufficient rules acumen make this same mistake when they claim to be running, "a totally RAW game." No, you're not. If you tell everyone who rolls 1 on a skill check they auto fail, you're doing it wrong.
Secondly, as most other posters have mentioned, applying a penalty to the Diplomancer's check or decreasing the target's attitude because someone failed an Aid Another roll on the check isn't RAW at all. Failing a Diplomacy check to change someone's attitude that fails by 5 or more results in target's attitude decreasing. Aid Another is NOT a roll to change an attitude, so the decrease was absolutely contrary to RAW.
This ruling falls squarely into the houserule category, and while I'm not necessarily opposed to it from a realism perspective, if you want to play a 'strictly RAW game', you can't make this call.
|
|
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
I'd say no; if a bonus applies specificaly to rolls for Influence Attitude, then it doesn't apply to rolls for Aid Another checks to Influence Attitude, at least within this interpretation. This counter position, as you called it, claims Aid Another to be a different check. It is a Diplomacy check, and therefore benefits from all bonuses that apply to all Diplomacy checks, but not from bonuses (or modifiers) that apply only to Influence Attitude action.
Within your initial interpretation, that is assuming that Aiding Another is the same action as the orignal, just the DC of the check is different, the answer would be yes.
|
|
Skill check is defined in the rules as "A skill check is a d20 roll + your skill modifier from the related skill (if any)" so if the rules meant to just make a generic skill check then it should say "by making the same skill check in a cooperative effort" instead of "by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort."
The phrase "kind of skill check" is not officially defined anywhere however the most reasonable interpretation is that the kinds of a skill check are the ones listed under the skill so in the case of Diplomacy the kinds of Diplomacy skill checks are:
Gather Information
Influence Attitude
Make Request
Suggest Course of Action
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, this is clearly not RAW. The rules are silent on penalties for failed Aid Another checks. On the other hand I think failing an Aid Another check should come with a penalty - otherwise everybody would roll it for every skill because there's no penalty for failure. Of course, I think the OP's ruling of decreasing attitude by a step was too harsh, and as an on-the-spot ruling I would allow the character to reconsider their roll since they didn't know the rule at the time.
|
|
First off, I know that rolling a 1 on a skill check isn't an auto-failure (which is why I added on the "and CHA of 7"), I was pointing out what situation would cause someone to say "f+*! you" on a Diplomancy check but it seems to have gone over people's heads, I thought the :3 at the end helped there.
"A failure to Aid does NOT mean the Barbarian did anything."
I'm gonna to disagree with this, if you were rolling, you were doing something. If you failed at it it means just that, you failed at what you were trying to do, not that you didn't bother attempting it all. And in this case, you failed a Diplomancy check to help your buddy influence someone.
Saying there's no drawback because you're not influencing a person, you're helping someone using the exact same roll to influence someone seems like splitting hairs to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
About what I understand by "a kind of check".
Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks, and saving throws.
Those types are further subdivided into rolls for specific modes of attack (melee/ranged), particular skills etc. These are my "kinds".
So when one player wants to make a NPC friendly, he makes:
- Type of action: Influence Attitude
- Kind of Check: Diplomacy Roll
- Modifiers: modifiers that apply to all Diplomacy rolls and modifiers that apply to the Influence Attitude action specificaly
- DC: as in the description of Influence Attitude action
- Effect: possible shift in the attitude of the NPC; with the roll low enough the shift may be negative
When another wants to help him:
- Type of action: Aid Another
- Kind of Check: Diplomacy Roll
- Modifiers: modifiers that apply to all Diplomacy rolls and modifiers that apply to the Aid Another action specificaly
- DC: 10
- Effect: success grants +2 bonus to the corresponding check of the first character
|
|
My position is clearly RAW as I am quoting the rules as written, although my position may not be RAI and my interpretation may not be the common interpretation.
It all comes down to the phrase "kind of skill check" written in the rules which I interpret to mean the kinds of skill checks listed under the Common Uses of a skill and the common interpretation is that it is a superfluous phrase.
|
|
The simplified argument logic comes down to:
Adjoint:
"kind of skill check" = "skill check" = superfluous phrase
Vista:
"kind of skill check" = kinds of Common Uses listed under skill
Summary
It is a matter of interpretation and my interpretation seems to be in the minority thus far however my interpretation is still consistent with the rules as written although it may not be consistent with the rules as intended.
| 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.
The simplified argument logic comes down to:
Adjoint:
"kind of skill check" = "skill check" = superfluous phrase
Vista:
"kind of skill check" = kinds of Common Uses listed under skill
Summary
It is a matter of interpretation and my interpretation seems to be in the minority thus far however my interpretation is still consistent with the rules as written although it may not be consistent with the rules as intended.
I don't get how Adjoint's logic is superfluous here.
A Skill Check is a Skill Check is a Skill Check, it doesn't matter if it's a specific kind of Skill Check or not. If I'm making a check to influence an Attitude, that requires a Skill Check, most specifically, Diplomacy. If I'm making a check to jump across a gap or move around an enemy, that also requires a Skill Check, most specifically, Acrobatics.
Using a Skill in a specific manner doesn't mean you're making a unique sort of Skill check. At best, you can argue that certain bonuses to Skill checks apply only when you're using said Skills in a specific manner (most commonly, Bluff to deliver/receive secret messages), but even then, that doesn't mean you're no longer making a Bluff check. It's just if you aren't making a Bluff check for that specific purpose, then those relevant bonuses wouldn't apply to that specific Bluff check.
|
|
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."
GM: "Wait, so you're not attacking at all?"
Player: "No, I'm attacking with my second attack, the first and last missed so I didn't attack with those."
GM: "... you didn't hit, you're still attacking."
Or more concisely,
Player: "I charge out at the noble from the alley, oh, I got a 3 on the die, so 8 altogether."
GM: "You miss, and-"
Player: "Okay, I just walk away then."
GM: "What?"
Player: "Since I didn't attack I just walk away."
GM: "Um, no you definitely attacked him, you just didn't hit him. He's screaming and calling for the guards."
Player: "But I didn't attack him."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"kind of skill check" = "skill check" = superfluous phrase
I thought that my example would clear up any misunderstanding, but it looks it doesn't.
Diplomacy check is a kind of skill check. Acrobatics check is another kind of skill check. And so on.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My position is clearly RAW as I am quoting the rules as written, although my position may not be RAI and my interpretation may not be the common interpretation.
It all comes down to the phrase "kind of skill check" written in the rules which I interpret to mean the kinds of skill checks listed under the Common Uses of a skill and the common interpretation is that it is a superfluous phrase.
Quoting the rules does not make one's position RAW. Holding a position that accurately reflects the rules quoted makes one's position RAW. In your case, you have interpreted the rules in a way that penalizes failure on Aid Another checks based on a rule in the Diplomacy section for influencing attitudes. There is no rule in the Aid Another section or the Diplomacy skill which explicitly or implicitly imposes a penalty for a failed Aid Another check. The rule does not exist, nor is there any implication that such a rule does exist, so positions which come to a different conclusion are, by definition, not "Rules As Written."
Does that mean you made a bad ruling? Not necessarily - such houserules are relatively common. If you look further back in the thread you'll find that I agree that there should be a penalty on failed Aid Another checks, although if you ask me it should just be a minor penalty like a -2. When rulings like this occur I think it's very important to be lenient, especially when making rulings like this one where the players were likely not aware of the potential consequences before making the check. If the players think it's fair then I'd let it slide the first time (since it's a new ruling) and start enforcing it thereafter, but if the players are overwhelmingly against it like Nekrotisch stated earlier I'd recommend not using it at all. After all, the primary goal is to have fun, and if a rule is actively detrimental to the players' fun you may be better off not using it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you are looking at your game disintegrating, it doesn't really matter how accurate to RAW your ruling was, you really have to look closely at whether your ruling was the right one for this group, and whether sticking to your guns and justifying your ruling is worth it.
It may be that it is worth walking away from this, but I'd certainly be taking a long hard look at how I run my game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Claiming to play the RAW cannot be unequivocally true. By definition you are playing by your interpretation of what the RAW means. Somebody else may have a different interpretation of what the RAW means.
Put simply, would you be satisfied with your decision if you were a player?
So to make a fair ruling you have to look at the rules and make assumptions about what the rules are trying to simulate, i.e. play the rules as you believe they are intended. If something is unclear, explain your ruling to the players before acting upon it. If something you think of as clear causes a revolt, then you are probably best letting it drop on this occasion and explain your ruling for future occasions.
In this scenario, explain that a poor Aid Another attempt can antagonise the person being influenced - they don't like being crowded or find the character rude etc and that will cause the attitude to drop. The players are then aware ahead of time. You could further explain that you find all the characters adding their +2's without risk is a little cheesy, hence the risk factor - failure has consequences [personally I would use the +/-2 suggestion so that risk=reward].
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a "By the rules" standpoint there is not a penalty for failing an aid another action. You are not making a normal use of the ability. You are just seeing if you can do roll enough to help the other person.
If the GM is going to allow your roll to take precedent if you were to roll higher than the primary roller then I would say it is fair, but that would also be beyond the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an example if I am helping someone on a swim check, and I roll below a 10 it doesn't mean that I will start to drown or I give them a penalty.
People can say how they feel, but the intent of the rules is not impacted by feelings.
If you think the PDT intended for the aid another to apply a penalty on a failure the simply say so, and an FAQ can quickly be created.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am the GM in a campaign
you actually bring up a huge point: We didn't know this ruling before the decision to make the roll, this ruling was nowhere to be found, and after we were told the ruling (after making the roll) we wanted to know if we could go back, now knowing that it could hurt us so badly, only to find out that we could not.
If the GM thinks it's more important to be right than for the players to have fun, the game is going to disintegrate. Especially if it's also true that this has happened more than once.
No wonder players are deciding that it isn't fun to spend their gaming time in your games.
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."
"...because there was no opening in their defense I could take advantage of."
Note that the NPC would still have reason to call the guards since they were threatened by the weapon. Holding someone at sword point is generally reason for them to call the guards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"...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").
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").
Failed to hit doesn't have to mean you swung wildly when there was no opening. I was pointing out that it could make sense that an accomplished warrior would realize that there was no opening. That is a valid way to fluff the miss.
On the mechanics side, they did make an attempt so anything triggered off that failed attempt would still happen. Had you quoted my next line, I mentioned how you wouldn't get out of the social side of it.
|
|
I rolled a perception check upon entering a room, what was I trying to do?Looking around, listening, smelling, etc. you may not actively be moving but you were still doing something.
I rolled a knowledge check upon seeing a creature, what was I trying to do?Trying to remember, purely mental action, but you were still doing something.
I rolled a will save, what was I trying to do?Trying to resist something mentally/spiritually. If you chose not to try to save that's detailed in the Core Rulebook, willingly failing a saving throw.
While it is certainly true that many actions result in die rolls, it is simply not true that every single die roll represents an action.Yes it does. If you roll the die, you are doing something, not matter how small or insignificant.
Furthermore, failing an aid another simply does not have the mechanical implications that you are assigning to failed checks.
We'll just have to disagree on that.
|
|
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").Failed to hit doesn't have to mean you swung wildly when there was no opening. I was pointing out that it could make sense that an accomplished warrior would realize that there was no opening. That is a valid way to fluff the miss.
Except it's not.
Swinging and missing/getting blocked =/= choosing not to take a swing.
On the mechanics side, they did make an attempt so anything triggered off that failed attempt would still happen. Had you quoted my next line, I mentioned how you wouldn't get out of the social side of it.
Threatening someone and attempted murder are two VERY different things.
I agree that with aid another a player would indeed need to declare he tries to support his friends diplomacy and that is what he does (trying to assist). But if he fails that check not coming up with anything useful in time is a very realistic outcome which descibes the reason he failed. Even better if the character finally comes up with something a couple of minutes after the opportunity has passed.
That being said the GM always has the final call about how an action is resolved, so he is free to declare what actually happened after the failed roll. But as the above example is both within the rules and great fun I wouldn't see the need to stop my players.
|
|
Standing around going "Um, uh, er..." is fine, that's still taking an action, but to say you character ended up choosing not to do anything really isn't.
"My character doesn't fail actions, they just choose not to do them." seems really arrogant and an abuse of being able to roleplay the flavor and effects of your roll.