I know I hit the DC 15, but the GM took one look at the monster and said "Nope--you failed to Aid."
This has happened again and again, to the point that I'm considering abandoning Aid as a viable 3rd action at this particular table.
I know GMs can adjust the DC for specific circumstances, but to my knowledge, that's not what's happening here. There are no unusual circumstances! Rather, I believe the GM is simply thinking "it's a tough monster" and so raises the DC to be more appropriate to the creature's level.
If he declared it as a house rule, I might be able to swallow that bitter pill, but he hasn't. It's just "no, you failed" over and over again.
It feels bad in a "the GM is fudging rolls against you" kind of way.
How might I convince him to change his ways?
Yeah, first step should be asking for clarification. There is no reason for your GM to obfuscate a clear mechanical ruling from you.
There does seem to be a problem there because the GM is letting you roll without telling you how plausible your explanation is so you at least have an idea if your attempt is far fetched to their mind.
You should as a player be given some info back when you say how you want to provide aid to an ally. That way you as a player can decide to use the action in the first place or to just do something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with everyone here. The most important is you to talk with your GM frankly asking how he is ruling the Aid DC and why.
Aid DC is one of the most confuse and poorly explained DC in the game. The DC is medium during initial levels but goes to be irrelevant in the end game and due how it is written as a fixed DC. The rules explains that the GM can increase it for "particularly hard or easy tasks" but it isn't clear what about defines a task as easy or difficult and how much difficult this DC has to be.
This poorly definitions makes many GMs to houserule this DC. Some uses the same task/enemy level DC instead while others may use Adjusting Difficulty rules instead. Currently, the PC1 added the note about Repetition what can make some GMs rule its difficult like a RK increasing the DC using the Adjusting Difficulty rules grade up to Incredibly hard and then impossible when used against creatures.
All this makes the Aid DC very inconsistent between games so you always needs to talk to your GM about how he is ruling and if you disagree try to convince him to rule it differently.
How might I convince him to change his ways?
Isn't this an advice question?
Yes, having hidden houserules is annoying. I don't think that a better understanding of the standard rules is going to change anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing to do but ask the DM how they're running aid.
Aid is kind of annoying, because the stated DC is so low as to be trivial past a certain point, yet the benefit is increasingly significant. (You can see this especially strongly with discussions over Fake Out and whether or not its target DC should scale.) It feels a bit like an unfinished mechanic, given how much it can affect encounter difficulty and how many handwave-y clauses there are.
Keep it worth it? Isn't it one of the most powerful and easily accessible buffs in the game?
At high levels it could easily add a whopping +4 bonus to a skill or attack!
With something like heroism and flanking, you could be talking about a 9 point swing in favor of the PCs!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"handwave-y clauses" are exactly what keeps the Aid action worth including in the game.
No it's not. It's a powerful action even with a DC that doesn't result in a critical success on a 2 on the dice.
Even the trivial DC is deliberate (especially given the DC dropped by 5 with remaster updates) so that the action can remain worth considering actual use of past the initial stages of the game (which funnily enough people used to talk about how that was the worst time to try to use the action before the DC was lowered)
The DC 15 is still often harder than the DC of doing the thing for a level 1 character, especially since the person with the best modifier in the action is probably rolling the action itself and not Aid. It's just less of a problem than it used to be, where the base DC should have been ignored completely because it made aid useless for several levels.
But it's still extremely common GM advice to change this DC frequently/always, because at high level there's no real point in having a DC at all if you leave it at 15 since its impossible to fail. And if something is difficult enough to need a roll at all, there should be a chance of failure.
It also makes no sense to me that someone trained in a skill who had absolutely no hope of doing the thing themselves is capable of providing meaningful assistance to someone who is legendary in the skill doing something extremely difficult. Like, my training in first aid is not going to allow me to assist someone doing surgery, let alone allow me to critically succeed at said assistance 95% of the time. That doesn't make any sense at all.
That's also true in combat: the idea that you can provide a +4 bonus (which almost nothing else in the game is capable of doing) on a DC 15 check that is impossible to fail is absurd. Much smaller bonuses have much higher DCs against that same opponent to get because they scale, and this one should too for the difficulty of actually providing that aid against the foe you're fighting.
I set this to an Easy/Very Easy DC depending on the situation, all the time. I don't have any problem with people still using Aid. They're just more strategic about it than it being the automatic best thing to do in any situation where it's allowed.
As a house rule as a GM, for things that are normally against an enemy (I'm specifically thinking of aiding for an attack roll) I'm likely to (again house rule) that the DC is either 15 or enemy AC-10 (whichever is higher).
I strongly believe that as task get more challenging, the DC to Aid should also get more challenging (though it shouldn't be as high [or higher]) as doing the thing yourself.
"handwave-y clauses" are exactly what keeps the Aid action worth including in the game.
Without them it would be an action that basically only allows for redundant skills to provide a benefit that is easily not worth the cost because of all the other options a character can have to spend their reaction on and then also find something else meaningful to do with a single action.
You have a good point here. Perhaps the main reason for it not to progress is precisely to keep the 'secondary' skills that the player cannot evolve more than trained useful at high levels to help other players who have invested in these skills (it is also possible for an untrained player to provide a high enough bonus for another trained player to have a chance equivalent to expert proficiency, but this is still limited by the minimum proficiency level that some DCs require).
The problem with this concept is that Aid also works for attacks, and these usually progress in such a way that even an Aid with MAP-10 at high levels ends up only failing with a nat 1, which ends up keeping Aid OP at high levels, especially for characters that do not have a better reaction to use, especially for something that you did not even need to spend a feat to use and improve.
Even the trivial DC is deliberate (especially given the DC dropped by 5 with remaster updates) so that the action can remain worth considering actual use of past the initial stages of the game (which funnily enough people used to talk about how that was the worst time to try to use the action before the DC was lowered)
I agree, if the designers intended for the DC to progress they would have already adjusted it to match the level DC or something. But I would still like some examples of usage and when the DC should be increased, especially in combat. It would go a long way toward making things more standardized.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it one of the most powerful and easily accessible buffs in the game?
Not really. Unless you are Legendary, which doesn't happen often, you'll roll for a +3. And you need a critical success, so DC 25, which isn't trivial before the highest levels. It costs an action and a reaction, which is a steep cost, especially at high level where you should have a use for your reaction and interesting third actions.
I've never used Aid in combat. Outside combat, it's nice as it gratifies characters who have high proficiency in a skill but are still not the best in the party (which happens rather regularly if you play in a PFS or Westmarches environment).
Overall, I find Aid to be working as intended. Raising the DC would very certainly make it not worth it.
This has happened again and again, to the point that I'm considering abandoning Aid as a viable 3rd action at this particular table.
Can you provide examples so we can judge your GM position? Because there are some forms of Aid I'd never allow at my table, like the archer "aiding" the melee character attacks with fake shots. So maybe you are using Aid in far-fetched ways that make the GM disagree with its use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you provide examples so we can judge your GM position? Because there are some forms of Aid I'd never allow at my table, like the archer "aiding" the melee character attacks with fake shots. So maybe you are using Aid in far-fetched ways that make the GM disagree with its use.
That's still not a great example. The GM problem in this scenario is letting the character use the Aid Preparation action with that far-fetched description.
If the GM doesn't like the narrative explanation of Aid that is being proposed, that is fine. But don't have the player waste their action and reaction on something that you have already determined will not be possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's still not a great example. The GM problem in this scenario is letting the character use the Aid Preparation action with that far-fetched description.
If the GM doesn't like the narrative explanation of Aid that is being proposed, that is fine. But don't have the player waste their action and reaction on something that you have already determined will not be possible.
More details will help me understand the situation better. Devil is in the details ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's also true in combat: the idea that you can provide a +4 bonus (which almost nothing else in the game is capable of doing) on a DC 15 check that is impossible to fail is absurd. Much smaller bonuses have much higher DCs against that same opponent to get because they scale, and this one should too for the difficulty of actually providing that aid against the foe you're fighting.I'd remind you that to get +4 you need to be legendary. So for +4 on Strikes you need to be a fighter. On athletics - legendary in athletics. Not everyone is legendary at all, especially when you think that the best character is already doing the main action. So more likely it's +3, and very easily it's +2 even at 20th level.
I think this is something that is very important to remember in the analysis. And something that many are not fully understanding.
Yes, Aid goes through stages as the campaign progresses. It is like some of the skill feats that are available at low level and then have optional upgrades for higher level if you continue investing in the skill. Such as Cat Fall.
At very low level (level 1 to maybe level 3) the action cost of Aid has a very low opportunity cost. Not every character even has a combat-worthy reaction at that level. But the dice roll is not trivial. There is a decent chance of failing at the check and a chance more than 5% to critically fail the check. And the reward for the action cost is generally a +1 bonus. Maybe +2 if you are very lucky.
At later low level play (level 3 to level 5) the risk of critically failing drops to nat-1 only unless you are using Aid with skills that you are not trained in. The action opportunity cost is still rather low. And the benefits of the action are still +1 or maybe +2 if you are lucky.
A nat-1 on the dice will succeed and then get downgraded to a failure if the final result after bonuses is 15. With Expert proficiency (+4) a +4 attribute bonus, and a +1 item bonus, that will happen at level 5. The exact level that this happens at varies based on character build, equipment, and any circumstance or status bonuses applied temporarily. This lets you use Aid without risk of spending the action and reaction and resulting in being a detriment to the ally.
For Fighter and Gunslinger at level 5 they can start giving a +3 bonus on Aid for combat attack rolls. If they crit the roll. At level 5 with a +4 attribute bonus and +6 for master proficiency and using a +1 weapon, they would need to roll a 9 to crit. So 55% chance of giving that +3 and 40% chance of giving only a +1. There is still the nat-1 downgrade to failure.
For all classes, they can start getting Master proficiency in skills at level 7. So they are then also giving out +3 bonuses for those few skills, with a +1 bonus as a consolation gift on very low rolls only.
This is also the point where Aid splits into two. You can only give +3 bonus at all with the one or two skills that you are Master in. For the rest of the skills you are giving out +2 bonuses and at lower percentage rates. Quite often (about a third of the time) you are spending an action and reaction to still only give out a +1 bonus.
Also at this point is where the action opportunity cost becomes a bit more costly. Especially that reaction cost.
A nat-1 on the dice will crit succeed and then get downgraded to a regular success if the final result after bonus is 25. For a skill or attack bonus at Master proficiency (+6) with a +5 attribute bonus and a +1 item bonus that happens at level 12. The exact character level that this happens will vary a bit with build, equipment, and if there are any temporary buffs adding circumstance or status bonuses. At that point, with those few Master level skills and if you are a martial character with your weapon attacks, you can guarantee at least the +1 bonus for the cost of your action and reaction. And for any roll greater than 1 on the die you will be giving out +3 bonuses.
For the rest of the martial classes, they are getting Master proficiency with their attack rolls at level 13 and can start giving out +3 bonuses to attack rolls using that instead of having to narratively justify using skills.
At level 15 characters will start getting Legendary skill proficiency. Fighter and Gunslinger get Legendary weapon proficiency at level 13. At this point with the level+8 bonus from proficiency and even a +2 bonus from attribute, characters are crit succeeding at the rolls on anything other than a nat-1. The GM should probably stop requiring rolls at all and just allow the crit success result automatically, at least for those few Legendary skills and attack proficiencies.
Aid is now split into three categories. Four if you still decide to use Aid with something that you are untrained in. But for the three that make sense, you have Trained proficiency tier, Master proficiency tier, and Legendary proficiency tier. For all characters at level 15 there is no risk of critical failure, and failure only happens on nat-1 - and often not even then. The roll is only really deciding between the +1 bonus for success and the +2, +3, or +4 bonus for critical success.
By this time, most characters will have a combat-worthy reaction and all actions are precious. So the opportunity cost of Aid has also increased. There is some stiff competition for what to use a 3rd action for. And reactions can literally save character's lives. Spending a 3rd action and your reaction on Aid may be too costly even for a +4 bonus - it would almost certainly be too costly if you are only providing a +2 bonus with a non-trivial risk of only a +1 bonus.
At pinnacle high level play, the only difference is that characters will have more skills at Legendary or Master proficiency. So it will be easier to narratively justify using a Legendary proficiency check for providing Aid with.
Summary:
level 1-3: low action opportunity cost, no character build investment needed, low benefit, high risk of detriment and/or no benefit.
level 3-5: low action opportunity cost, easy character build investment needed, low benefit, low risk of no benefit, very low risk of detriment.
level 5-6: moderate action opportunity cost, easy character build investment needed, low benefit, low risk of no benefit. No risk of detriment.
level 7-13: moderate to high action opportunity cost, split into two categories:
* easy character build investment gives moderate benefit with low risk.
* high character build investment gives good benefit with no practical risk.
level 13+: moderate to high action opportunity cost, split into three categories:
* easy character build investment gives moderate benefit with very low risk.
* moderate character build investment gives good benefit with no risk.
* extreme character build investment gives very good benefit with no risk.
I think it is a common mistake to assume that you can always narratively justify using Aid with your highest available proficiency and only run the analysis using that expectation. Only Fighter and Gunslinger get Legendary proficiency in weapon attack rolls. For most characters, they will only have 3 Legendary skills. Rogue and Investigator still only have 6.
Feats that allow Aid with a single skill investment, like One for All, are incredibly powerful and do in fact throw off the analysis. But that is a problem with those feats, not with the framework of Aid in the general case.
I really liked the analysis.
In fact, Aid has a much higher opportunity cost than many people imagine. In general, for most melee martial artists, it stops being viable when you get an efficient reaction like AoO/RS, which can vary from level 1 for fighters to level 6 for most other classes. For ranged martial artists, it depends on how you use your third action, since good reactions for ranged attacks are very rare, and can vary enormously from level to level and from class to class, and for spellcasters, the third action is usually already occupied.
Isn't it one of the most powerful and easily accessible buffs in the game?Not really. Unless you are Legendary, which doesn't happen often, you'll roll for a +3. And you need a critical success, so DC 25, which isn't trivial before the highest levels. It costs an action and a reaction, which is a steep cost, especially at high level where you should have a use for your reaction and interesting third actions.
This right here. It's not that great, people imagine it is but in real situations it doesn't compare well with your other options most of the time.
Going into this with trying to change someone's ways is a sure fire way to fail and likely come off as being adversarial. As others have said, figure out the how and why it's happening before you try to figure out how to get what you want.
How many other methods are there for getting circumstance bonuses to attacks at or exceeding those modifiers?
There aren't many, I just found it in a quick search the Desperate Wrath for Barbarians, the Magnetic Shot ammo and the Sash of Books apex.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about real shots? With ammo expended if you are counting it, action costs for reload if required and no damage even on good rolls (higher than AC).
Just curious. Maybe we even have discussed that, I don't remember.
What's the in character difference between shooting an enemy to hurt them and shooting an enemy to help your friend hitting? If there's none then there should be no mechanical difference.
I don't see any way to shoot at an enemy to help an ally and as such I don't allow Aid with a ranged weapon. It just looks like a way to gain a benefit without having paid for anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslinger's Fake Out implies it can be done, though it's up to you whether fake out 1) allows you to aid an attack with your ranged weapon when you otherwise couldn't, or 2) just lets you do something you could already do and reduces its action cost to 1R from 1A+1R.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about real shots? With ammo expended if you are counting it, action costs for reload if required and no damage even on good rolls (higher than AC).
Just curious. Maybe we even have discussed that, I don't remember.What's the in character difference between shooting an enemy to hurt them and shooting an enemy to help your friend hitting? If there's none then there should be no mechanical difference.
I don't see any way to shoot at an enemy to help an ally and as such I don't allow Aid with a ranged weapon. It just looks like a way to gain a benefit without having paid for anything.
You pay the same action + reaction cost as anyone else does, not sure what you mean by 'without having paid for anything'. Personally, I think it makes a good amount of sense that if someone is firing an arrow at you at the same time you're trying to dodge someone else's sword strike, it's harder for you to avoid both; if that's the effect you're looking for, you don't need to hit a weak point in their armour/put your full draw weight into it/take the time to line up the shot perfectly/etc, because it just needs to be an arrow going near the enemy, which is the difference between shooting with the intent to hurt and the intent to aid. Surely it's harder to differentiate swinging a sword at an enemy with the intent to hurt vs aid someone else than it is with a bow, especially when something like Feint already exists?
I agree Fake Out is a good example.
The main difference is if you use the Fake Out using Gunslinger's feat you don't need to make a preparation action and won't get the +1 circumstance bonus. But it's a good example in how to Aid at range.
You pay the same action + reaction cost as anyone else does, not sure what you mean by 'without having paid for anything'.
No feat, no character option. On top of it, archers have few uses of their reactions. So it's really very close to paying nothing, it's an excellent third action just because you're an archer.
Personally, I think it makes a good amount of sense that if someone is firing an arrow at you at the same time you're trying to dodge someone else's sword strike, it's harder for you to avoid both;
But then you should get the bonus when doing an actual attack.
I agree Fake Out is a good example.
Considering how Fake Out is described, it's not something you should be able to do without the feat.
Aid gets mixed up with many actions that can be done in the game, and as far as I understand about PF2e this is not an impediment. However, in fact the final word always belongs to the GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, I'm still waiting for Ravingdork to explain at least one of the situations so I could better understand his GM position.
I disagree.
Doctor: "Scalpel please, assistant"
Medic: {hands scalpel}
Handing someone a scalpel is worth a +2 bonus? I really, really don't think that is in line with how you get other +2 bonuses in this game.
Another example would be a ranged combatant aiding a melee combatant. The person at range has literally no hope of performing a melee attack on the target. They simply cannot do what the target of the Aid action can do, because they are out of range. But distracting the opponent, making them think you are shooting at them, etc. could, for some GMs and depending on the circumstance, be considered a reasonable basis for Aid.
FWIW I don't disagree with your comments about raising the DC at higher levels.
The closest equivalent to that in terms of an action that already exists in game would be to improvise on Create a Distraction or Feint, and neither of those have a DC close to 15 against a high level enemy.
Which is the whole point: Aid is providing bonuses completely out of line with its difficulty relative to doing any other method of getting those bonuses if you leave the DC at 15. There's nothing wrong with someone wanting to do these things, but the idea that they should just auto crit succeed because "high level" is fundamentally different from how the rest of the game works.
I would allow an archer to aid a melee attack. If they wanted to use their attack modifier they'd need to actually fire an arrow, which I'd allow since it just means spending ammunition alongside needing to make the roll. If they wanted to full-on fake that they were going to shoot, I'd call for Deception as they make a big show of being about to shoot but then not actually releasing the arrow.
If literally shooting the target doesn't provide a distraction, why would pretending to shoot them provide a distraction? The target is already defending themselves from you because that's how the game works. Thats why things like Feint require an action with a much higher DC to create an opening and Fake Out exists as a feat so you're investing something in the ability to do it.
All this is doing is taking a MAP strike with a low chance of success and turning it into a bonus with a much easier DC, for doing literally exactly the same thing. That's not a case for why this is a good idea: it illustrates the problem perfectly. Even at MAP 10, a DC 15 strike is trivial for a high level character.
Not really. Unless you are Legendary, which doesn't happen often, you'll roll for a +3. And you need a critical success, so DC 25, which isn't trivial before the highest levels. It costs an action and a reaction, which is a steep cost, especially at high level where you should have a use for your reaction and interesting third actions.
My level 9 SoT party is crit succeeding on a DC 15 Aid in things they're good at on 5-8 on the dice. Even the Cloistered Cleric using an unarmed strike is crit succeeding with a strike to Aid on a 12 on the dice.
They're not even in the upper half of the level range yet, let alone at high level. It's absolutely trivial well before "the very highest levels", since the ability boosts at 10 and more +2 bonuses (which they largely don't have yet) will bump those numbers up fast.
At actual high level they'll be crit succeeding on any roll other than 1, which would be a success. The only time it takes the very highest levels to trivialize this is if you're using Untrained Improvisation rather than something you're actually good at.
Overall, I find Aid to be working as intended. Raising the DC would very certainly make it not worth it.
That's not my experience and I use higher DCs. What it does do is stop the Cursebound (aka: Enfeebled) 3 Cosmos Oracle (aka: my Kingmaker character) from going "well I ended up in melee and have one action left, I'm going to crit succeed to aid someone else's strike with my fist that would probably miss if I attacked and would do almost no damage even if it did."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My level 9 SoT party is crit succeeding on a DC 15 Aid in things they're good at on 5-8 on the dice.
And as such it's not trivial. As you said, you need to wait for high levels to crit succeed on a 2-4, which would be the moment where it actually becomes trivial.
That's not my experience and I use higher DCs. What it does do is stop the Cursebound (aka: Enfeebled) 3 Cosmos Oracle (aka: my Kingmaker character) from going "well I ended up in melee and have one action left, I'm going to crit succeed to aid someone else's strike with my fist that would probably miss if I attacked and would do almost no damage even if it did."
If at level 11+ you don't have anything better to do with your last action as an Oracle, I think it's very much on you. 1-action Focus Spells, Trip, move to Flanking position and Demoralize/Scare to Death are common competitors. And moving away from melee range is also an excellent choice for a caster.
Aid for anything but an automatic +3 is not really worth the action cost. Unless you have badly built your character you should have better things to do with your actions.
Handing someone a scalpel is worth a +2 bonus? I really, really don't think that is in line with how you get other +2 bonuses in this game.
I disagree.
Doctor: "Scalpel please, assistant"
Medic: {hands scalpel}
Well in a world where x-rays machines doesn't exist scalpel are the only way to threat many internal diseases and injures. Anyway just give a scalpel to an medic ally isn't enough to justify a +2 but use make this and many other assistances while treat an pacient while give your own opinions about the case can.
The point of Aid isn't about passing things (there no use for skills in this situation) but now when and how you are passing things while discuss better options.
The closest equivalent to that in terms of an action that already exists in game would be to improvise on Create a Distraction or Feint, and neither of those have a DC close to 15 against a high level enemy.
Which is the whole point: Aid is providing bonuses completely out of line with its difficulty relative to doing any other method of getting those bonuses if you leave the DC at 15. There's nothing wrong with someone wanting to do these things, but the idea that they should just auto crit succeed because "high level" is fundamentally different from how the rest of the game works.
I agree, but we need to note that the action costs and situations are different.
Create a Diversion is an action meant to make enemies stop noticing you, turning you hidden against the target. The Aid diversion doesn't attempt to do this.
Feint is a distraction created only for yourself and lasts for a longer period. By default, you can't share the benefits of Feint with allies.
Aid, on the other hand, not only costs more actions (1 action + 1 reaction), but it's specifically used to create a distraction that benefits a single ally in a single action or activity, using your reaction.
Questioning this use of Aid, in my opinion, is similar to questioning the use of Feint versus Create a Diversion, because while both aim to create a distraction, they work fundamentally differently. But we can justify that Aid DC could be smaller because you using more actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Handing someone a scalpel is worth a +2 bonus? I really, really don't think that is in line with how you get other +2 bonuses in this game.
I disagree.
Doctor: "Scalpel please, assistant"
Medic: {hands scalpel}Well in a world where x-rays machines doesn't exist scalpel are the only way to threat many internal diseases and injures. Anyway just give a scalpel to an medic ally isn't enough to justify a +2 but use make this and many other assistances while treat an pacient while give your own opinions about the case can.
The point of Aid isn't about passing things (there no use for skills in this situation) but now when and how you are passing things while discuss better options.
The closest equivalent to that in terms of an action that already exists in game would be to improvise on Create a Distraction or Feint, and neither of those have a DC close to 15 against a high level enemy.
Which is the whole point: Aid is providing bonuses completely out of line with its difficulty relative to doing any other method of getting those bonuses if you leave the DC at 15. There's nothing wrong with someone wanting to do these things, but the idea that they should just auto crit succeed because "high level" is fundamentally different from how the rest of the game works.
I agree, but we need to note that the action costs and situations are different.
Create a Diversion is an action meant to make enemies stop noticing you, turning you hidden against the target. The Aid diversion doesn't attempt to do this.
Feint is a distraction created only for yourself and lasts for a longer period. By default, you can't share the benefits of Feint with allies.
Aid, on the other hand, not only costs more actions (1 action + 1 reaction), but it's specifically used to create a distraction that benefits a single ally in a single action or activity, using your reaction.
Questioning this use of Aid, in my opinion, is similar to questioning the use...
Yeah, the specific example is bad.
Just handing one implement to the the surgeon isn't going to get the bonus (at least not if I'm GMing). But assuming you are standing by during the whole procedure, handing over medical implements, watching the procedure, offering advice, monitoring the patient, etc then it can make sense.
We don't see surgeons operating on patients alone for good reasons.
As a GM, my general rule when it comes to Aid is that you can nearly always Aid using the same skill/check than the person performing the action. The second you start using another skill or another check, outside feats and abilities, you have high chances to get a no from me. It gives a rather simple framework to the action and as such players know when they can and can't. And, from my personal experience with a lot of different GMs and players, it's the most common expectation.
That's why ranged Aid to a melee character is something I don't do. But I'd certainly consider differently ranged Aid to a ranged character. Not that it really makes sense, but it follows this simple framework of Aiding using the same kind of check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you provide examples so we can judge your GM position?
Most commonly, I'll be in melee with an enemy* and an ally, often flanking. Then I declare that my third action will be to Aid my flanking ally, to better ensure they hit or crit. Then I make an attack roll, and seeing that it's a success or crit success against DC 15, even with the occasional MAP, I declare the roll total to the GM.
Then the GM says something along the lines of "you failed; no bonus" or "not enough to aid".
So far I've not put a whole lot of effort into describing precisely how my character is aiding the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The closest equivalent to that in terms of an action that already exists in game would be to improvise on Create a Distraction or Feint, and neither of those have a DC close to 15 against a high level enemy.
Those are narratively similar to Aid, but have some differences. They are very much different mechanically from Aid.
Create a Diversion and Feint both give you bonuses to your next attack, rather than an ally.
And if you have Distracting Performance you can use Create a Diversion using Performance to give the bonuses from the Hidden condition to an ally instead of yourself.
Which is the whole point: Aid is providing bonuses completely out of line with its difficulty relative to doing any other method of getting those bonuses if you leave the DC at 15.
If you don't like the rules, then houserule them. But call it a houserule. There is nothing wrong with houseruling rules that you don't like or don't think work well.
But don't try to push your houserules as official rules.
If you are scaling the Aid DC to the enemy's level when using Aid for attack rolls, then that is a houserule.
If you are unscaling the bonuses and no longer have the increased bonus for higher proficiency when you crit the roll, then that is a houserule.
In all cases, you should be announcing your houserules to the other players so that they are aware of them and can adjust their tactics accordingly. Otherwise you end up with frustrated players like Ravingdork wondering why the official rules aren't being followed.
Then I make an attack roll, and seeing that it's a success or crit success against DC 15, even with the occasional MAP, I declare the roll total to the GM.
Aid would never have MAP applied.
The roll is not done during your turn. It is done during your reaction. Reactions do not have MAP applied with the lone exception of Ready.
Aid does not use the Ready mechanics. It has its own Aid Preparation action.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you provide examples so we can judge your GM position?Most commonly, I'll be in melee with an enemy* and an ally, often flanking. Then I declare that my third action will be to Aid my flanking ally, to better ensure they hit or crit. Then I make an attack roll, and seeing that it's a success or crit success against DC 15, even with the occasional MAP, I declare the roll total to the GM.
Then the GM says something along the lines of "you failed; no bonus" or "not enough to aid".
So far I've not put a whole lot of effort into describing precisely how my character is aiding the other.
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, this sounds a lot like a the GM having certain expectations of what you should describe and the GM not telling you what those expectations are, and instead of giving you feedback on why it doesn't work and what they expect, they're just telling you it failed.
In any event, the best way to proceed is to talk to the GM (outside of game time, don't put them on the spot cause that's unlikely to be a good time for the discussion, but rather very reaction rulings especially if done in front of the other players). Ask the GM something like, "Hey, I've noticed I've failed a lot of Aid actions/roll, could you help me to understand why I'm failing? From my understanding I only need to hit a DC 15, which I believe I'm generally achieving. Is something else I'm unaware of causing me to fail, because I don't really understand why I'm failing."
Aid
It’s up to you whether someone’s preparation is enough to
let them Aid an ally. The preparation should be specific to
the task at hand. Helping someone hold a lockpick steady
might be enough preparation to Aid an attempt to Pick a
Lock, but just saying you’re going to “encourage” them
likely wouldn’t. Second, the character who’s attempting
to Aid needs to be in a proper position to help and able
to convey any necessary information. Helping a character
Climb a wall is pretty tough if the character a PC wishes
to Aid is nowhere near them. Similarly, a character usually
needs to be next to their ally or a foe to Aid the ally in
attacking the foe. You’ll also need to determine how long
the preparation takes. Typically, a single action is sufficient
to help with a task that’s completed in a single round, but
to help someone perform a long-term task, like research,
the character has to help until the task is finished.
GM Core leaves it up to a GM to decide if aid is possible.
Player Core says the GM can change the DC.I would just be transparent about the chances. If they need a higher than normal roll to succeed I will tell a player its going to be difficult but you can try.
If its impossible I wont let the player waste an action and reaction. Ill just say its so unlikely to succeed you would be wasting your action to try.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aid would never have MAP applied.
That's not really the case. The preparation and the Aid actions are linked together. If you have an impediment during the preparation (like a MAP penalty) it's legitimate to see it applied to the Aid check to represent the preparation was harder.
To take an example: If you are blinded when making your preparation and the condition wears off before you roll your check, I think most GMs would give you a penalty to your Aid check to represent that your preparation was not performed in an ideal condition.Similarly, applying the MAP (as a bonus to the DC) is a perfectly legitimate rule, neither a houserule nor a violation of RAI.
Most commonly, I'll be in melee with an enemy* and an ally, often flanking. Then I declare that my third action will be to Aid my flanking ally, to better ensure they hit or crit. Then I make an attack roll, and seeing that it's a success or crit success against DC 15, even with the occasional MAP, I declare the roll total to the GM.
Then the GM says something along the lines of "you failed; no bonus" or "not enough to aid".
So far I've not put a whole lot of effort into describing precisely how my character is aiding the other.
I agree your GM is not real upfront about what's happening.