Hi everyone,
The rules about Aid indicate that you have to prepare to Aid to use the reaction. But nothing states that using the reaction stops the preparation nor that the Aid reaction has to somehow be used before the next round.
Is it possible to "prepare to Aid" for multiple Aid reactions accross multiple rounds?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To use this reaction, you must first prepare to help, usually by using an action during your turn. You must explain to the GM exactly how you're trying to help, and they determine whether you can Aid your ally.
If you can explain to the GM how you are preparing to Aid someone that far in advance, sure.
But the GM is also within their bounds to say that circumstances of the battle have changed sufficiently that your preparations to Aid during round 1 are no longer applicable during round 3.
If you can explain to the GM how you are preparing to Aid someone that far in advance, sure.
Well, a round is 6 seconds. Stating that I'm "preparing to help the Fighter hack the enemy" should stay valid as long as I'm next to said enemy. I don't see a reason to force the Aid check during the next round.
But the GM is also within their bounds to say that circumstances of the battle have changed sufficiently that your preparations to Aid during round 1 are no longer applicable during round 3.
The GM can do whatever they want. But my question is more akin to: Would you allow it as a GM?
If for example I prepare to Aid the Fighter hacking an enemy, would you allow the use of the Aid reaction during multiple rounds as long as the enemy, the Fighter and I haven't really moved much?
The GM can do whatever they want.
Not while still also saying that they are following RAW.
Yes, a GM can invoke the First Rule and houserule things to run however they feel that it should.
My answer to your question is more: RAW, the GM can and should set limits on the duration of Aid preparations, but those limits are not specified and must be determined by the circumstances of the battle.
If for example I prepare to Aid the Fighter hacking an enemy, would you allow the use of the Aid reaction during multiple rounds as long as the enemy, the Fighter and I haven't really moved much?
Now you have added more details to the circumstances of the battle. In this particular case, I would allow it.
In a different scenario, I might not. If you prepared to Aid a Fighter's second attack on one enemy, but the Fighter drops it with a crit on the first attack on their turn without your Aid and then for their next turn they move to a different enemy and start hacking at that one, I would probably rule that you need to re-Prepare Aid.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there was a situation specific idea for how you're Aiding that could reasonably call for setting something up to do it multiple times, I might allow it.
That example of "I will prepare now to be ready to help 3 times over the next 18 seconds if this melee stays next to me", with no further narrative explanation to support it, is exactly the sort of thing that I would definitely not allow.
If there was a situation specific idea for how you're Aiding that could reasonably call for setting something up to do it multiple times, I might allow it.
That example of "I will prepare now to be ready to help 3 times over the next 18 seconds if this melee stays next to me", with no further narrative explanation to support it, is exactly the sort of thing that I would definitely not allow.
Ah, yes. I missed that part in the original question.
No, I wouldn't let one Preparation action count for multiple Aid reactions. Each Aid reaction has to have its own Preparations action.
With some really niche combat scenario and narrative description, I might let you use Prepare two or three times in one round and then be able to Aid over the course of multiple rounds (you would still be limited by the number of reaction actions that you have each round).
-----
As for allowing Preparation to last longer than the end of your ally's next turn, I need to come up with a better way of describing my answer. Because this conversation seems to be going in the same direction as the other one yesterday regarding using Strike on an object.
There is a difference between:
* the GM invoking the First Rule and adjudicating a new way of running some game mechanic
* the rules being inadvertently ambiguous and the GM invoking the Ambiguous Rules rule and making an adjudication on the matter
* the rule saying explicitly that the GM needs to make an adjudication on this mechanic.
Ruling that Aid has a scaling DC based on the ally's character level, but gives a scaling bonus on success equal to your proficiency rating (+2 for trained, +4 for expert...) at the skill or attack roll used would be a First Rule adjudication. That is a houserule.
Ruling that Heal will cause damage to a Dhampir and Harm will restore HP is invoking the Ambiguous Rules rule. That is a table ruling.
Ruling on how a character can use their mace to damage a flower vase sitting unattended on a table is "by RAW, GM adjudicates".
A good example is "give a leg up" to help an ally climb or jump over a barrier.
The preparation would be to join hands or use some object or equipment while holding it so that an ally can climb and thus receive help via reaction in the process.
Technically a character could maintain this posture (although I would probably impose additional conditions such as not being able to use the hands or the item for additional uses) and thus save actions and be able to help different allies only with the reaction.
Since this type of situation normally does not occur in combat it is not usually a major concern.
But for example providing Aid to an ally holding an opponent already grabbed so that he is easier to hit. I would hardly allow this constantly due the enemy movements without another preparation action.
Another situation, for example, as shown in one of the CRB figures, would be someone helping a "rogue" to disarm a trap by holding a lamp, passing tools and pointing out possible notable points with her knowledge (in thievery or another useful skill). Probably the process of holding and "holding" the light, passing tools, and pointing would count as part of the preparation as well, requiring her to repeat (with the reaction representing the moment in which the tool is finally passed, the light is moved to a better position or the moment in which it is pointed out that it is better to cut the red wire than the blue one) until the trap is finally disarmed.
I would rarely accept a situation where the helping PC would not be constantly repeating the preparation in an encounter situation. But I will not lie that it would be possible if I think it would be reasonable and balanced enough.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Long Tasks: For a task that takes longer than a round, you often need to spend more than one action preparing to help, as determined by the GM.
As the GM, I would certainly require the preparation every round. The prep action for the Aid reaction is a trade-off. You are sacrificing an action to literally grant yourself a unique reaction. I would not allow one prep to grant 1+X reactions.
Now, I might be convinced to allow a character to spend an entire round setting up three rounds of Aid reactions, but not for the example of Aiding the Fighter hacking an enemy. That gets into the next salient part of the Aid Details...
Repetition: Aiding the same creature multiple times can have diminishing returns. In particular, if you try to repeatedly Aid attacks or skill checks against a creature, the GM will usually increase the DC each time as your foe gets more savvy. This isn't the case if there's no reason the task would be less likely to work if repeated, such as Aiding someone who's climbing a wall or picking a lock.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, I might be convinced to allow a character to spend an entire round setting up three rounds of Aid reactions, but not for the example of Aiding the Fighter hacking an enemy.
That is also a very good point. There is a difference between doing one task that takes more than one round to do, and doing multiple of the same task over the course of multiple rounds.
Hacking at an enemy would be repetition.
Casting a two-round version of Horizon Thunder Sphere would be one task that takes multiple rounds.
Thanks for all your answers. I was not allowing multiple Aid for the same preparation nor allowing a preparation to be used long ago after it's been done and I see it's a general feeling on that matter. So I'll continue doing it that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aid DetailsLong Tasks: For a task that takes longer than a round, you often need to spend more than one action preparing to help, as determined by the GM.As the GM, I would certainly require the preparation every round. The prep action for the Aid reaction is a trade-off. You are sacrificing an action to literally grant yourself a unique reaction. I would not allow one prep to grant 1+X reactions.
Now, I might be convinced to allow a character to spend an entire round setting up three rounds of Aid reactions, but not for the example of Aiding the Fighter hacking an enemy. That gets into the next salient part of the Aid Details...
Repetition: Aiding the same creature multiple times can have diminishing returns. In particular, if you try to repeatedly Aid attacks or skill checks against a creature, the GM will usually increase the DC each time as your foe gets more savvy. This isn't the case if there's no reason the task would be less likely to work if repeated, such as Aiding someone who's climbing a wall or picking a lock.
Yep.
In general I'd require one preparation action to be spent per round/instance of aid if you were trying to aid someone over multiple rounds.
Maybe in some very specific circumstances there is a narrative justification for allowing one aid preparation action to function for more than one instance, but it's going to have to be a very good justification that I can't think of.
Ruling on how a character can use their mace to damage a flower vase sitting unattended on a table is "by RAW, GM adjudicates".
I agree that this requires GM fiat, but the GM fiat requirement seems unintentional. The Strike action says it only works on creatures, yet there are player options that take it for granted that Strike does work on unattended objects. If the intent was to require GM fiat, they'd just say so instead of contradicting themselves like this.