| 1 person 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.
That's also very clearly a houserule.
The multiple attack penalty doesn't apply to attacks you make when it isn't your turn
The multiple attack penalty applies only during your turn
If you have a multiple attack penalty and your readied action is an attack action, your readied attack takes the multiple attack penalty you had at the time you used Ready. This is one of the few times the multiple attack penalty applies when it's not your turn.
Run the game how you want, but call your houserules houserules. Nothing in Aid says that Multiple Attack Penalty applies, and Multiple Attack Penalty says as a general rule that it doesn't apply when it is not your turn. In order for Aid to have MAP, it would have to have an override rule saying that MAP applies - like Ready does.
I think Superbidi is getting around the idea of it being a house rule because technically the increase is to the DC using GM discretion to adjust DCs for an aid check.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Superbidi is getting around the idea of it being a house rule because technically the increase is to the DC using GM discretion to adjust DCs for an aid check.
Yes, that seems to be a common theme.
The rule says:
The typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks.
"particularly hard or easy".
To me that implies that it is for things that are not already part of what Aid describes as standard uses of Aid. The things that Aid gives as examples or standard scenarios are not "particularly hard or easy".
Aiding an attack roll is given as a standard scenario. "Trigger: An ally is about to use an action that requires a skill check or attack roll." The GM shouldn't be increasing the DC due to Aiding an attack roll. That isn't "particularly hard". That is what Aid is supposed to be doing.
Aid is defined as a reaction that pretty much always happens during your ally's turn instead of your own. MAP doesn't apply. The GM shouldn't be increasing the DC due to making a check when it isn't your turn. That doesn't qualify as being "particularly hard".
In general, just like the player should have to describe exactly how they are providing Aid, the GM should be able to describe exactly why the DC is increased for being particularly hard.
I think Superbidi is getting around the idea of it being a house rule because technically the increase is to the DC using GM discretion to adjust DCs for an aid check.Yes, that seems to be a common theme.
The rule says:
The typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks."particularly hard or easy".
To me that implies that it is for things that are not already part of what Aid describes as standard uses of Aid. The things that Aid gives as examples or standard scenarios are not "particularly hard or easy".
Aiding an attack roll is given as a standard scenario. "Trigger: An ally is about to use an action that requires a skill check or attack roll." The GM shouldn't be increasing the DC due to Aiding an attack roll. That isn't "particularly hard". That is what Aid is supposed to be doing.
Aid is defined as a reaction that pretty much always happens during your ally's turn instead of your own. MAP doesn't apply. The GM shouldn't be increasing the DC due to making a check when it isn't your turn. That doesn't qualify as being "particularly hard".
In general, just like the player should have to describe exactly how they are providing Aid, the GM should be able to describe exactly why the DC is increased for being particularly hard.
A point here also would be that a player could use aid as thier first action. then do thier strikes and completely and always avoid adding in map through order of actions.
The example of being blinded during your Aid Preparation action would be an example of Aid being "particularly hard" and would qualify as a reason to increase the DC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's also very clearly a houserule.
If you give the preparation action the attack trait then MAP should apply to it as it happens during your turn. The final check sanctions both the preparation action and the Aid action and as such it's legitimate to apply a penalty that was there during the preparation. It's not a houserule, it's an edge case: if you have a penalty that only applies during a part of an action, it's up to the GM to determine if you apply it to the final check or not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you give the preparation action the attack trait
That's also very clearly a houserule.
Why would you do that?
I could understand giving the Aid Reaction the attack trait because that is when the attack roll is being rolled.
"Preparing to make an attack" wouldn't have the Attack trait. Drawing a weapon doesn't have the Attack trait. Picking a target to swing at doesn't have the attack trait (and isn't even an action). Devise a Strategem doesn't have the Attack trait.
Also, if you give the Aid Preparation the Attack trait, then it would increase MAP stage for the rest of your current turn.
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 **
Or your GM is "cheating" because he doesn't likes Aid in combat or he's using a higher DC. You need to talk with him to understand what's happening.
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.So that would be completely insufficient for my GM. However he would tell me it's completely insufficient and ask for a better description. He would not just let me roll and then tell me it didn't work.
So my suggestion is put more work into your description. I'd also have a talk with your GM because it sounds like you and they are not seeing eye to eye in terms of GM-to-Player feedback on this. You need to iron out with them the sort of description quality they expect/demand for Aid to have a chance of working. Make up a bunch of examples and have them say yea or nay. Or ask them to tell you the sort of thing they're looking for.
Worth remembering the text: "You must explain to the GM exactly how you're trying to help, and they determine whether you can Aid your ally."
Saying "Look GM, I rolled a 16!" is not an explanation of how you are trying to help.
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."
It's too much alien for me this thing of force failure an Aid without even ask: "OK, how do you want to Aid?" question nor "Sorry it isn't enough to Aid" this thing about just say "you fail" is just bad.
If you give the preparation action the attack trait
That's also very clearly a houserule.Why would you do that?
I could understand giving the Aid Reaction the attack trait because that is when the attack roll is being rolled.
"Preparing to make an attack" wouldn't have the Attack trait. Drawing a weapon doesn't have the Attack trait. Picking a target to swing at doesn't have the attack trait (and isn't even an action). Devise a Strategem doesn't have the Attack trait.
Also, if you give the Aid Preparation the Attack trait, then it would increase MAP stage for the rest of your current turn.
If you save the preparation for last, that shouldn't be an issue. It wouldn't affect your aid reaction either because MAP doesn't apply outside your turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you save the preparation for last, that shouldn't be an issue. It wouldn't affect your aid reaction either because MAP doesn't apply outside your turn.If you give the preparation action the attack trait
That's also very clearly a houserule.Why would you do that?
I could understand giving the Aid Reaction the attack trait because that is when the attack roll is being rolled.
"Preparing to make an attack" wouldn't have the Attack trait. Drawing a weapon doesn't have the Attack trait. Picking a target to swing at doesn't have the attack trait (and isn't even an action). Devise a Strategem doesn't have the Attack trait.
Also, if you give the Aid Preparation the Attack trait, then it would increase MAP stage for the rest of your current turn.
Superbidi is just saying when you are aiding using an attack roll it will gain the attack trait by GM decision, and doing so will increase the DC of the aid check by the amount of MAP for that preparation also by GM decision. Both of which are RAW to do.
A GM deciding not to do this is also RAW.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Superbidi is just saying when you are aiding using an attack roll it will gain the attack trait by GM decision, and doing so will increase the DC of the aid check by the amount of MAP for that preparation also by GM decision. Both of which are RAW to do.
I understand the argument. I do not agree that it is RAW.
This part is RAW: "when you are aiding using an attack roll it will gain the attack trait by GM decision".
This part is not RAW: "doing so will increase the DC of the aid check by the amount of MAP for that preparation".
Aid is designed to be a Reaction. And Reactions made when it is not your turn do not have MAP applied.
In order to increase the DC and claim RAW, the increase needs to be based on "particularly hard" Aid mechanics.
A general rule applied to all Aid attempts or all Aid attempts of a category (such as Aid attempts that use attack rolls or aid attack rolls) is a houserule. It isn't a 'particularly hard' usage of Aid if it is the standard usage of Aid.
So a general rule that "using Aid to help an ally with Strike actions will have the DC set to the standard DC for the level of the creature being attacked by Strike" is a houserule. It is a change to the general rule for Aid saying that the typical DC is 15.
And a general rule that "using an attack roll for Aid will have MAP apply during the Reaction" is a houserule. It is a change to the general rule that MAP doesn't apply to checks made when it is not your turn by adding an override clause to the Aid reaction.
Superbidi is just saying when you are aiding using an attack roll it will gain the attack trait by GM decision, and doing so will increase the DC of the aid check by the amount of MAP for that preparation also by GM decision. Both of which are RAW to do.I understand the argument. I do not agree that it is RAW.
This part is RAW: "when you are aiding using an attack roll it will gain the attack trait by GM decision".
This part is not RAW: "doing so will increase the DC of the aid check by the amount of MAP for that preparation".
Aid is designed to be a Reaction. And Reactions made when it is not your turn do not have MAP applied.
In order to increase the DC and claim RAW, the increase needs to be based on "particularly hard" Aid mechanics.
A general rule applied to all Aid attempts or all Aid attempts of a category (such as Aid attempts that use attack rolls or aid attack rolls) is a houserule. It isn't a 'particularly hard' usage of Aid if it is the standard usage of Aid.
So a general rule that "using Aid to help an ally with Strike actions will have the DC set to the standard DC for the level of the creature being attacked by Strike" is a houserule. It is a change to the general rule for Aid saying that the typical DC is 15.
And a general rule that "using an attack roll for Aid will have MAP apply during the Reaction" is a houserule. It is a change to the general rule that MAP doesn't apply to checks made when it is not your turn by adding an override clause to the Aid reaction.
Couldn't a GM be valid in saying preparing to attack alongside an ally to aid them (which is kind of what is being done if the preparation is given the attack trait, just its an attack to aid not an attack to do damage.) that it is not really all that different conceptually from a readied attack and reasonably harder when it was prepared with higher MAP?
I am not sure I would run aid this way but it has some logic to it. It doesnt seem unreasonable for a GM to say if you prepared with higher map that the aid reaction was "particularly hard"
It certainly is a big difference in what aid is good for though.
If you give the preparation action the attack trait then MAP should apply to it as it happens during your turn. The final check sanctions both the preparation action and the Aid action and as such it's legitimate to apply a penalty that was there during the preparation. It's not a houserule, it's an edge case: if you have a penalty that only applies during a part of an action, it's up to the GM to determine if you apply it to the final check or not.
That's also very clearly a houserule.
I have to agree with Finoan Bidi, Aid is an reaction and the roll is done during the reaction not the preparation. It is not an edge case. Treating this as an Edge Case would be similar to treating recharge and reload as part of the actions that need them.
Superbidi is just saying when you are aiding using an attack roll it will gain the attack trait by GM decision, and doing so will increase the DC of the aid check by the amount of MAP for that preparation also by GM decision. Both of which are RAW to do.I understand the argument. I do not agree that it is RAW.
This part is RAW: "when you are aiding using an attack roll it will gain the attack trait by GM decision".
This part is not RAW: "doing so will increase the DC of the aid check by the amount of MAP for that preparation".
Aid is designed to be a Reaction. And Reactions made when it is not your turn do not have MAP applied.
In order to increase the DC and claim RAW, the increase needs to be based on "particularly hard" Aid mechanics.
A general rule applied to all Aid attempts or all Aid attempts of a category (such as Aid attempts that use attack rolls or aid attack rolls) is a houserule. It isn't a 'particularly hard' usage of Aid if it is the standard usage of Aid.
So a general rule that "using Aid to help an ally with Strike actions will have the DC set to the standard DC for the level of the creature being attacked by Strike" is a houserule. It is a change to the general rule for Aid saying that the typical DC is 15.
And a general rule that "using an attack roll for Aid will have MAP apply during the Reaction" is a houserule. It is a change to the general rule that MAP doesn't apply to checks made when it is not your turn by adding an override clause to the Aid reaction.
I agree this just looks like as an excuse to increase the DC as workaround. We also need to notice that now Aid also have the Repetion rule that will increases the DC similarly to RK so if we apply both the thing would be very hard:
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.
Also he is already applying an additional restriction to only allows Aid when using the same skill (in this case probably it is the attack) what makes the thing even more harder.
We need to take some care to also prevent to disable the Aid effectiveness.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Couldn't a GM be valid in saying preparing to attack alongside an ally to aid them (which is kind of what is being done if the preparation is given the attack trait, just its an attack to aid not an attack to do damage.) that it is not really all that different conceptually from a readied attack and reasonably harder when it was prepared with higher MAP?
Not while also claiming that they are running by RAW.
It is a logical houserule, yes. Maybe even a reasonable one. But it is still a houserule.
I'm citing my rules sources. That is why I can claim RAW. Because the rules that I am using to make my case are Written. I can point to them.
The only weak point in my argument that I can see is my statement that:
It is not a 'particularly hard' usage of Aid if it is the standard usage of Aid.
That is what you need to argue against.
The rest of my reasoning follows from that premise and the printed rules.
Aid is designed to be used to assist attack rolls. The typical DC for Aid is 15. It doesn't make a distinction for the level of the ally being assisted or the level of the enemy being attacked.
The Aid Reaction is designed to not happen during your turn. MAP does not apply to Reactions made when it is not your turn, and the GM should not be adjusting the DC to 'compensate' for that. The developers didn't forget that MAP doesn't apply to reactions. Aid is not Ready. The Ready Reaction has an exception that causes MAP to apply, Aid does not.
Changes to the DC for Aid should be for actual exceptional circumstances when using the Aid mechanics, not for general use cases of Aid.
I don't feel the current disagreement is in keeping with the purpose of this thread.
Take it to the rules forums.
The advice is to use this rules logic to convince the GM that they are running Aid incorrectly or to admit that they are using secret houserules.
It's too much alien for me this thing of force failure an Aid without even ask: "OK, how do you want to Aid?" question nor "Sorry it isn't enough to Aid" this thing about just say "you fail" is just bad.
I don't recall ever being asked "how do you want to Aid?"
I don't feel the current disagreement is in keeping with the purpose of this thread.
Take it to the rules forums.
LOL. It was a Rules thread. Looks like it got moved at some point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This part is not RAW: "doing so will increase the DC of the aid check by the amount of MAP for that preparation".
Can the GM add the Attack Trait to the preparation action?
Yes: The GM can add any relevant traits to your preparatory actionIs the DC affected by the preparation action?
Implied: The typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks.
So the GM is in their full right to consider that the MAP you have when performing the preparation action affects the preparation action and that it impacts the final DC.
I'm not saying anything about the fact that you should or shouldn't do it, just that it's fully possible by RAW. And there's an RAI logic to it: It follows the rules for Ready.
Ready
If you have a multiple attack penalty and your readied action is an attack action, your readied attack takes the multiple attack penalty you had at the time you used Ready. This is one of the few times the multiple attack penalty applies when it's not your turn.
Aid
When you use your Aid reaction, attempt a skill check or attack roll of a type decided by the GM. The typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks. The GM can add any relevant traits to your preparatory action or to your Aid reaction depending on the situation, or even allow you to Aid checks other than skill checks and attack rolls.
Seems to me that you ready at attack on your turn to aid, if using your attack bonus to aid. So adding the attack trait to aid makes sense, then adding in MAP at that point also makes sense. This seems like the logical method of doing attacks to aid.
On another note, I could easily see someone shooting an arrow or bullet to land next to someone's foot as a surprise distraction to aid.
Couldn't a GM be valid in saying preparing to attack alongside an ally to aid them (which is kind of what is being done if the preparation is given the attack trait, just its an attack to aid not an attack to do damage.) that it is not really all that different conceptually from a readied attack and reasonably harder when it was prepared with higher MAP?Not while also claiming that they are running by RAW.
It is a logical houserule, yes. Maybe even a reasonable one. But it is still a houserule.
I'm citing my rules sources. That is why I can claim RAW. Because the rules that I am using to make my case are Written. I can point to them.
The only weak point in my argument that I can see is my statement that:
It is not a 'particularly hard' usage of Aid if it is the standard usage of Aid.
That is what you need to argue against.
The rest of my reasoning follows from that premise and the printed rules.
Aid is designed to be used to assist attack rolls. The typical DC for Aid is 15. It doesn't make a distinction for the level of the ally being assisted or the level of the enemy being attacked.
The Aid Reaction is designed to not happen during your turn. MAP does not apply to Reactions made when it is not your turn, and the GM should not be adjusting the DC to 'compensate' for that. The developers didn't forget that MAP doesn't apply to reactions. Aid is not Ready. The Ready Reaction has an exception that causes MAP to apply, Aid does not.
Changes to the DC for Aid should be for actual exceptional circumstances when using the Aid mechanics, not for general use cases of Aid.
Maybe I was misunderstood. I was actually saying exactly that 'particularly hard' is why it can be seen as RAW to do things that way.
I understand the argument. I do not agree that it is RAW.This part is RAW: "when you are aiding using an attack roll it will gain the attack trait by GM decision".
This part is not RAW: "doing so will increase the DC of the aid check by the amount of MAP for that preparation".
Aid is designed to be a Reaction. And Reactions made when it is not your turn do not have MAP applied.
In order to increase the DC and claim RAW, the increase needs to be based on "particularly hard" Aid mechanics.
A general rule applied to all Aid attempts or all Aid attempts of a category (such as Aid attempts that use attack rolls or aid attack rolls) is a houserule. It isn't a 'particularly hard' usage of Aid if it is the standard usage of Aid.
So a general rule that "using Aid to help an ally with Strike actions will have the DC set to the standard DC for the level of the creature being attacked by Strike" is a houserule. It is a change to the general rule for Aid saying that the typical DC is 15.
And a general rule that "using an attack roll for Aid will have MAP apply during the Reaction" is a houserule. It is a change to the general rule that MAP doesn't apply to checks made when it is not your turn by adding an override clause to the Aid reaction.
I was claiming RAW precisely because a GM has to determine what "particularly hard" by the rules as written and because a GM needs to decide if aiding has traits rules as written.
Responding to your points I didn't actually see a RAW argument that is any more valid than what I originally said.
You say reactions don't suffer map, that's true, but aid isn't suffering map, the player bonus is not less at all(The DC is being increased based on it being particularly hard which is raw)
Standard usage is semantics in this situation, not a RAW argument.
I agree the rules say a typical DC is 15. but there is nothing that says that when a GM gives the attack trait and the action is used while there is MAP that it is typical and not particularly hard.
When I said this, I thought I was conveying the above without having to spell it out because I know how knowledgeable of the rules you are.
It doesn't seem unreasonable for a GM to say if you prepared with higher map that the aid reaction was "particularly hard"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the GM is in their full right to consider that the MAP you have when performing the preparation action affects the preparation action and that it impacts the final DC.
I'm not saying anything about the fact that you should or shouldn't do it, just that it's fully possible by RAW. And there's an RAI logic to it: It follows the rules for Ready.
I would say, though, that this leads to a fairly counterintuitive paradigm where it's melee-range casters (like a warpriest) who are happiest to aid. I'm not really sure that's how I'd want the mechanic to turn out.
The fact Fake Out doesn't suffer MAP also flies in the face of this logic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's too much alien for me this thing of force failure an Aid without even ask: "OK, how do you want to Aid?" question nor "Sorry it isn't enough to Aid" this thing about just say "you fail" is just bad.
I would agree the GM's response as told by RavingDork sounds like someone being adversarial or angry. As a GM, if I wanted an explanation for how you were aiding and you didn't provide one, I would ask. In the case of trying to help someone to get a melee hit while being in melee range, it's not even a thing I would ask about as it's pretty much "harass/distract the enemy". Other things require more imagination.
And if someone failed, I'm not going to tell them "no it doesn't work without explanation". The explanation is going to be "because you didn't roll high enough". I'm not the kind of GM that would play "gotcha" because I didn't like your aid description and wasn't going to allow it or anything like that. I would tell a player "Sorry, that's not going to work, but you can still do something else or think of a different way to aid".
If the GM is really saying "you fail to aid" without further context or information it feels like they're being adversarial/hostile/obtuse/difficult in an intentional way. And as a player, I'd walk away from such a table.
I would say, though, that this leads to a fairly counterintuitive paradigm where it's melee-range casters (like a warpriest) who are happiest to aid. I'm not really sure that's how I'd want the mechanic to turn out.
I absolutely don't understand why. Melee-range casters are extremely bad at aiding with an attack as they don't get above Expert and Aid starts being interesting when you hit Master.
The fact Fake Out doesn't suffer MAP also flies in the face of this logic.
If you Ready an Action to Strike an enemy when the enemy moves, you suffer from MAP. If you use Reflexive Strike when they move you don't suffer from MAP. So it's already the case in general.
And Fake Out is it's own feat and as such doesn't have to commit to other rules.
We don't see surgeons operating on patients alone for good reasons.
The people assisting surgeons are generally other specialists like anesthesiologists or nurses, which are highly trained medical professionals. They're not someone who took the two day workplace first aid course outside of a crisis situation where no one better is available (and certainly not someone just winging it with untrained improvisation).
Specialists and nurses are definitely better than trained and are doing things much more difficult than a DC 15 would imply, since that's the same DC as effectively applying basic first aid to wounds at level 1.
The example is utter nonsense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those are narratively similar to Aid, but have some differences. They are very much different mechanically from Aid.
Yes, and I said as much. But they're the closest examples of what was described as how Aid is being provided, because there is no actual such action in the game except one that costs a class feat. And the fact that it costs a class feat should probably imply that it requires that to do it, but anyway.
Since there's no mechanical equivalent but there are narrative equivalents, I used them for comparison to show how silly it is that one of these requires DC 15 and the other one at high level will be ~DC 35. They're not THAT different.
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.
Since the rules flat out say "the GM can adjust this DC", it's by definition not a house rule. The Aid rule itself says it. It's RAW.
But yes, I do announce it clearly, have already stated that in this thread, and the fact that you spend so many words trying to browbeat me over it as if I spring this as a surprise on players isn't discussing this in good faith: it's an attempt to shut down discussion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the rules flat out say "the GM can adjust this DC", it's by definition not a house rule. The Aid rule itself says it. It's RAW.
The rule does not flat out say that. It does not say, "the GM can adjust this DC".
The rule says, "the GM can adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks".
The GM has to justify changing the DC. Not just change it on a whim. And not just change it permanently.
Is the DC affected by the preparation action?
Implied: The typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks.
Then you have a RAI argument, but not a RAW argument.
That is all that I am saying.
Maybe I was misunderstood. I was actually saying exactly that 'particularly hard' is why it can be seen as RAW to do things that way.
How is it 'particularly hard' to run Aid exactly as described?
Aid is supposed to be used with and for attack rolls. So how are you saying that doing so is 'particularly hard'? Aid is supposed to be used at high level play to aid allies attacking high level enemies. So how is doing so 'particularly hard'?
What does 'particularly hard' mean to you?
For that matter, what would 'particularly easy' mean? What scenario would cause you to lower the DC of Aid? What Aid task would have a DC of 10? How about a DC of 3?
Then you have a RAI argument, but not a RAW argument.
That's the exact opposite: I have a RAW argument. You could say that the intention is not to increase DCs in this specific situation and as such raise an RAI argument against it. But from a strict RAW point of view raising the DC is very much written in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely don't understand why. Melee-range casters are extremely bad at aiding with an attack as they don't get above Expert and Aid starts being interesting when you hit Master.
Because they're about the only people who will be in melee to aid (as you've prohibited ranged aid), but not have MAP when they aid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule does not flat out say that. It does not say, "the GM can adjust this DC".
The rule says, "the GM can adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks".
The GM has to justify changing the DC. Not just change it on a whim. And not just change it permanently.
The GM is also the one who decides what is a hard or easy task. That's RAW. Since the GM can change the DC by RAW for a hard/easy task and the GM decide what is a hard/easy task by RAW, the GM can change the DC by RAW.
You might not like that it's RAW, but that doesn't matter in a RAW discussion. The GM can set this DC to literally anything they want RAW and they justify it by declaring "this situation makes difficult enough to warrant DC X." That's RAW.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simply aiding an attack, all it's own should not be considered an easy or hard task. Any GM who thinks otherwise is being disingenuous and punitive.
It's for things like aiding an attack in a blizzard, or on a rolling ship deck at sea, or when magnetic forces speed your weapon towards your target.
Maybe I was misunderstood. I was actually saying exactly that 'particularly hard' is why it can be seen as RAW to do things that way.How is it 'particularly hard' to run Aid exactly as described?
Aid is supposed to be used with and for attack rolls. So how are you saying that doing so is 'particularly hard'? Aid is supposed to be used at high level play to aid allies attacking high level enemies. So how is doing so 'particularly hard'?
What does 'particularly hard' mean to you?
For that matter, what would 'particularly easy' mean? What scenario would cause you to lower the DC of Aid? What Aid task would have a DC of 10? How about a DC of 3?
I do want to give a good answer here. But first I will say I am not a RAW argument person. I dont do things by RAW when its not the most fun way to run the game for my group. Thats always my bottom line.
But, I do recognize here with Aid as its written a GM deciding things differently than what some have claimed for what is particularly hard or easy as the only RAW argument is odd. RAW a GM is perfectly within bounds saying preparing to AId after striking twice is more difficult than using aid before striking (and by giving aid the attack trait those strikes would be particularly harder to hit with after aiding.) It becomes reciprocal.What I think is happening in this conversation is there has been a way of running aid some here have been used to and anything different than that they are seeing as abnormal and absurd. Which may be true for them, but it is also within RAW.
If you give the preparation action the attack trait then MAP should apply to it as it happens during your turn. The final check sanctions both the preparation action and the Aid action and as such it's legitimate to apply a penalty that was there during the preparation. It's not a houserule, it's an edge case: if you have a penalty that only applies during a part of an action, it's up to the GM to determine if you apply it to the final check or not.
That's also very clearly a houserule.
So if you give the preparation action the attack trait which it doesn’t have, then? What?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simply aiding an attack, all it's own should not be considered an easy or hard task. Any GM who thinks otherwise is being disingenuous and punitive.
It's for things like aiding an attack in a blizzard, or on a rolling ship deck at sea, or when magnetic forces speed your weapon towards your target.
I totally agree with this point. The easy or hard task adjustment IMO is more to adjust the DC to an specifically hard or easier condition that makes sense to help or difficulties the Aid like for example a creature trying to Aid an ally in darkness even having darkvision because darkvision usually are color blind so you have additional difficult to help an allying to disable a trap where some mechanisms (like the red/blue wires) are color identified so makes sense to increase the DC in situations like these.
But for a normal attack Aid synchronizing one of your attacks or helping with another skill in a reasonable way with an ally to help this same ally to hit IMO falls in the default DC difficulty.
I don't consider MAP as a valid way to justify an increased difficulty because MAP is not verosimilitude mechanism to represent some additional difficult due do many rapid attacks it is a pure gameplay restriction to desincentive player to just Strike, Strike and Strike in every turn.
A GM like SuperBidi can homebrew this freely of course but this is not RAI, there are any intent in the game that a reaction receives MAP unless explicitly specified to do this like Ready action does.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simply aiding an attack, all it's own should not be considered an easy or hard task. Any GM who thinks otherwise is being disingenuous and punitive.
Yeah. I'm trying to be polite by saying that it is not RAW.
Typical uses of Aid use the typical DC. The typical DC is 15. That is RAW.
Again, the rule is, "The typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks."
The second half of that sentence doesn't invalidate the first half. If you permanently change the DC to be based on the level of the characters or the enemies, then you are changing the typical DC - not adding an adjustment for a 'particularly hard' use case of Aid.
Changing the typical DC of aid is a houserule.
It's for things like aiding an attack in a blizzard, or on a rolling ship deck at sea, or when magnetic forces speed your weapon towards your target.
Still waiting for anyone to present a scenario that would cause the GM to lower the DC for a particularly easy Aid task.
If people can justify raising the typical DC by 17 points up to DC 32 just because you are fighting a level 14 creature, what would cause you to lower the typical DC by 12 points to be DC 3?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I was misunderstood. I was actually saying exactly that 'particularly hard' is why it can be seen as RAW to do things that way.How is it 'particularly hard' to run Aid exactly as described?
Aid is supposed to be used with and for attack rolls. So how are you saying that doing so is 'particularly hard'? Aid is supposed to be used at high level play to aid allies attacking high level enemies. So how is doing so 'particularly hard'?
What does 'particularly hard' mean to you?
For that matter, what would 'particularly easy' mean? What scenario would cause you to lower the DC of Aid? What Aid task would have a DC of 10? How about a DC of 3?
I do want to give a good answer here. But first I will say I am not a RAW argument person. I dont do things by RAW when its not the most fun way to run the game for my group. Thats always my bottom line.
But, I do recognize here with Aid as its written a GM deciding things differently than what some have claimed for what is particularly hard or easy as the only RAW argument is odd. RAW a GM is perfectly within bounds saying preparing to AId after striking twice is more difficult than using aid before striking (and by giving aid the attack trait those strikes would be particularly harder to hit with after aiding.) It becomes reciprocal.
What I think is happening in this conversation is there has been a way of running aid some here have been used to and anything different than that they are seeing as abnormal and absurd. Which may be true for them, but it is also within RAW.
The importance of RAW in flexible rules like Aid is to keep a baseline to help the GM in how to rule it without make the thing too goo or too bad.
For example initially I houseruled to use the Level-Based DCs in Aids after level 1 because the DC 15 is basically the same DC of a defaut level 1 DC. But after some gameplay I noticed that the opportunity cost Aid increases as the level up for both in encounter and in exploration situations and that keep the DC increasing progressively makes Aid even more difficult than what I planned to it to even turning it unfeasible in many situations.
For example to Aid someone in a skill check in exploration, usually the PC that is doing the skill check is the most skilled one while the PC that is Aid frequently is someone that stick in trained proficiency. Overtime this was turning the help even more and more difficult to do when I was using the same DC that was used in the challenge to Aid turning many Aids just an additional roll to try to get a very high dice result to have some chance to Aid. Instead I started to use the DC 15 + difficult adjustment based in the minimum proficiency requirement difference (like for example if a PC is using a trained skill to help a rogue ally to disable a trap that requires an expert proficiency I consider it as hard and increase the Aid DC to 17 (15 +2 of hard adjustment)) later as I noticing that not everything has a minimum proficiency requirement I switch to use the difference between proficiency grades of the allied that the PC are helping the proficiency of the PC that is Aiding (for exemple a PC master in diplomacy trying to Impress an NPC being helped by an ally that is trained in diplomacy trying to help adding comments during this ally conversation will have to pass in a DC 20 (15 + 5 from very hard due 2 grades difference) to give a circumstance bonus in this conversation).
In these cases I was adjusting the DC based in the additional difficulties based in the RAW DC 15 + Adjusting Difficulty table ruling it as RAI based in RAW rules.
I use the same logic to help in battles. If a PC is trying to help and ally distracting an enemy to be easier to hit by an ally attacking sincronizing 1 of their attacks in that round using Aid but theres a difference between their proficiencies like the PC Aiding is trained in the attacks while this PC ally is expert the initial Aid DC will be 17 (15 + 2 from hard) and will increase for each new attack vs the same creature like pointed the Repetition note (so the second Aid vs the same target will be DC 20 due 15 + 5 from very hard and the third Aid vs the same target will be DC 25 due 15 + 10 from impossible difficult). Including inverting this if the proficiency grade different is positive like a fighter that is expert in its Strikes Aiding an ally that is just trained making the DC roll being 13 (15 - 2 from Easy).
So if you give the preparation action the attack trait which it doesn’t have, then? What?If you give the preparation action the attack trait then MAP should apply to it as it happens during your turn. The final check sanctions both the preparation action and the Aid action and as such it's legitimate to apply a penalty that was there during the preparation. It's not a houserule, it's an edge case: if you have a penalty that only applies during a part of an action, it's up to the GM to determine if you apply it to the final check or not.
That's also very clearly a houserule.
MAP isn't the only mechanic behind an Attack and you aren't giving an attack trait to the preparation action but to Aid reaction. The preparation action is not too different from a Reload/Recharge action that is needed to be able to use another action but it still a different action. You need to reload a crossbow to Strike with it but reload doesn't get the Attack trait because it is not the attack roll action, it is a preparation action to allow the character to Strike with this crossbow that is really gets the Attack trait.
Also any other think that is related to an attack is still valid. If for example the enemy have a trigger that allows it to do something in case of an enemy creature failure in a attack roll (there are some reactions that do this) it still will trigger if your Aid attack roll failures.
Again, the rule is, "The typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks."
The second half of that sentence doesn't invalidate the first half. If you permanently change the DC to be based on the level of the characters or the enemies, then you are changing the typical DC - not adding an adjustment for a 'particularly hard' use case of Aid.
That's why I currently using the Adjusting Difficulty table instead of arbitrarily changing the DC.
That's why I currently using the Adjusting Difficulty table instead of arbitrarily changing the DC.
That is at least reasonable.
That also isn't going to cause a level 15 character to roll their Aid check and have the GM say, "Nope, you failed ".
It's for things like aiding an attack in a blizzard, or on a rolling ship deck at sea, or when magnetic forces speed your weapon towards your target.Still waiting for anyone to present a scenario that would cause the GM to lower the DC for a particularly easy Aid task.
If people can justify raising the typical DC by 17 points up to DC 32 just because you are fighting a level 14 creature, what would cause you to lower the typical DC by 12 points to be DC 3?
I'm currently using the Aided ally proficiency as basis to decide how easy/hard is to Aid. The idea is that the allied proficiency matter more than target difficult itself.
If you are working in a thing and have an assistant that is helping you but this assistant is less experienced/trained than you it is likely that this assistant capacity to help is more limited because many of its suggestions is already know by you or this assistant help is slower and cannot be really useful at all. At same time if your assistant is more qualified that you the probability that it works better and faster than you and have more experience to give very useful tips to you like a teacher to a student makes the chance (and the bonus) that this Aid better.
That also isn't going to cause a level 15 character to roll their Aid check and have the GM say, "Nope, you failed ".
To me, this in itself is absurd, regardless of the DC.
The player should be informed by the GM in advance whether or not his Aid will be more difficult and why. It is not a clear rule that the player is ignoring, it is something decided by the GM arbitrarily and therefore should at least be transparent.
Simply aiding an attack, all it's own should not be considered an easy or hard task. Any GM who thinks otherwise is being disingenuous and punitive.Yeah. I'm trying to be polite by saying that it is not RAW.
Typical uses of Aid use the typical DC. The typical DC is 15. That is RAW.
Again, the rule is, "The typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks."
The second half of that sentence doesn't invalidate the first half. If you permanently change the DC to be based on the level of the characters or the enemies, then you are changing the typical DC - not adding an adjustment for a 'particularly hard' use case of Aid.
Changing the typical DC of aid is a houserule.
It's for things like aiding an attack in a blizzard, or on a rolling ship deck at sea, or when magnetic forces speed your weapon towards your target.Still waiting for anyone to present a scenario that would cause the GM to lower the DC for a particularly easy Aid task.
If people can justify raising the typical DC by 17 points up to DC 32 just because you are fighting a level 14 creature, what would cause you to lower the typical DC by 12 points to be DC 3?
So should all the GMs out there come check with you first before they decide what is particularly hard before they adjust the DC of Aid?
Cause thats one of two things you are implying.The other is that there can be no permanent thing that is particularly hard. That doesnt make sense to me. If aiding a melee attack borrowing the examples that Ravingdork provided of magnetics and rolling seas as particularly hard and the GM keeps it that way everytime those things happen its still rules as written. Deciding aiding while having map is particularly hard is no different other than you disagree with the judgement call.
In fact consistency in rulings that are based on judgement calls like deciding what is particularly hard is a good thing.
Again the reaction on this take is more likely because you find the judgment call absurd not because its outside RAW to make that judgment.
Maybe I was misunderstood. I was actually saying exactly that 'particularly hard' is why it can be seen as RAW to do things that way.How is it 'particularly hard' to run Aid exactly as described?
Aid is supposed to be used with and for attack rolls. So how are you saying that doing so is 'particularly hard'? Aid is supposed to be used at high level play to aid allies attacking high level enemies. So how is doing so 'particularly hard'?
What does 'particularly hard' mean to you?
For that matter, what would 'particularly easy' mean? What scenario would cause you to lower the DC of Aid? What Aid task would have a DC of 10? How about a DC of 3?
I do want to give a good answer here. But first I will say I am not a RAW argument person. I dont do things by RAW when its not the most fun way to run the game for my group. Thats always my bottom line.
But, I do recognize here with Aid as its written a GM deciding things differently than what some have claimed for what is particularly hard or easy as the only RAW argument is odd. RAW a GM is perfectly within bounds saying preparing to AId after striking twice is more difficult than using aid before striking (and by giving aid the attack trait those strikes would be particularly harder to hit with after aiding.) It becomes reciprocal.
What I think is happening in this conversation is there has been a way of running aid some here have been used to and anything different than that they are seeing as abnormal and absurd. Which may be true for them, but it is also within RAW.The importance of RAW in flexible rules like Aid is to keep a baseline to help the GM in how to rule it without make the thing too goo or too bad.
For example initially I houseruled to use the Level-Based DCs in Aids after level 1 because the DC 15 is basically the same DC of a defaut level 1 DC. But after some gameplay I noticed that the...
I agree with the goal too to make options available balanced. Im only arguing a GM has the rules as written justification to make a call on what is particularly hard and that map can be a reason for that GM.
Is it balanced to do so is another thing entirely and I would want to run things in a way that is balanced even when the rules allow it to not be.
Simply aiding an attack, all it's own should not be considered an easy or hard task. Any GM who thinks otherwise is being disingenuous and punitive.Yeah. I'm trying to be polite by saying that it is not RAW.
Typical uses of Aid use the typical DC. The typical DC is 15. That is RAW.
Again, the rule is, "The typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks."
The second half of that sentence doesn't invalidate the first half. If you permanently change the DC to be based on the level of the characters or the enemies, then you are changing the typical DC - not adding an adjustment for a 'particularly hard' use case of Aid.
Changing the typical DC of aid is a houserule.
It's for things like aiding an attack in a blizzard, or on a rolling ship deck at sea, or when magnetic forces speed your weapon towards your target.Still waiting for anyone to present a scenario that would cause the GM to lower the DC for a particularly easy Aid task.
If people can justify raising the typical DC by 17 points up to DC 32 just because you are fighting a level 14 creature, what would cause you to lower the typical DC by 12 points to be DC 3?
So should all the GMs out there come check with you first before they decide what is particularly hard before they adjust the DC of Aid?
Cause thats one of two things you are implying.
The other is that there can be no permanent thing that is particularly hard. That doesnt make sense to me. If aiding a melee attack borrowing the examples that Ravingdork provided of magnetics and rolling seas as particularly hard and the GM keeps it that way everytime those things happen its still rules as written. Deciding aiding while having map is particularly hard is no different other than you disagree with the judgement call.
In fact consistency in rulings that are based on judgement calls like deciding what is particularly hard is a good thing.Again the...
IMO there is a difference between arbitrating a DC and changing the difficulty of a DC.
When the GM decides which DC to use based on the level or what he thinks, he is arbitrating. When he uses an existing DC as a base and increases or decreases its value, especially following the rules defined in Adjusting Difficulty based on the circumstances that make the check easier or harder, he is in fact adjusting an existing DC rather than arbitrating it.
But notice arbitrating a DC even for Aid is not wrong. Maybe will have situations where the GM will judge that simply increase the DC to 25 isn't enough. But in general I think that this isn't necessary because as pointed by Adjusting Difficulty:
The DC Adjustments table lists the categories of adjustments. The adjustments' names are relative to the base difficulty of the task itself—a very hard 2nd-level task will not be “very hard” for a 10th-level PC to accomplish! PCs who invest in a skill will become better and better at that skill as they increase in level. For example, even the best 1st-level PC has grim odds against an incredibly hard 1st-level DC, with a huge chance of critical failure, but by 20th level, an optimized character with a modicum of magic or assistance can take down incredibly hard 20th level DCs over half the time, critically failing only on a 1. At higher levels, many groups will find that the very hard DC is more like standard for them; keep that in mind if you need a check that presents a true challenge to a highlevel group.
So IMO the idea is that the Aid will becomes more easier as long the character levels up instead of keep the same average difficult during all levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would ask the DM what their aid parameters are and decide if it is worth the third action once I know that information.
Just to be clear, I was proposing magnetics as an example of a particularly EASY task, to contrast with my other two hard task examples.
We don't see surgeons operating on patients alone for good reasons.The people assisting surgeons are generally other specialists like anesthesiologists or nurses, which are highly trained medical professionals. They're not someone who took the two day workplace first aid course outside of a crisis situation where no one better is available (and certainly not someone just winging it with untrained improvisation).
Specialists and nurses are definitely better than trained and are doing things much more difficult than a DC 15 would imply, since that's the same DC as effectively applying basic first aid to wounds at level 1.
The example is utter nonsense.
I disagree that it's nonsense. The example was someone simply handing the surgeon implements. That's a bad example, but someone assisting the surgeon during surgeon is absolutely an example that makes sense, because we know that's how it done (today).
There were 0 statements about the level of training of the individual, you're making assumptions.
It would also be quite unusual for there to be a proficiency requirement for aid, but as a GM I suppose you could aid such if you thought it was necessary. But since the actions one can take from the Medicine skill require one to be trained only....that wouldn't exactly be a fair requirement IMO, at least beyond requiring someone be trained. It would be fair to require the person providing Aid to be trained.
|
Just gonna throw one thing out there, as for the most part I agree with the over all consensus I'm seeing of lack of communication.
You've specified that you beat a DC15... is it possible your GM's understanding of Aid is till pre-master? when the DC was 20? This might be barking up the wrong tree, but It's a reasonable explanation I could easily think of where he didn't realize/forgot it changed, and thus didn't think he had to explain why you failed when you thought you succeeded.
The problem there is that it introduces an 'ordering' effect. Strike/Strike/Aid will be much harder than Aid/Strike/Strike, when ideally the order of actions shouldn't matter.
It's a non issue. Either you give the Aid action, in general, the attack trait and Aid/Strike/Strike will see a penalty on your Strikes. Or you consider that you use the MAP at the end of the turn and it also works. Or you just consider that Striking after the Preparation breaks the Preparation (as you are now doing something else than being ready to help).
Applying MAP to attack based Aid doesn't create any problem.