Because this isn't forbidden in the game mechanically and frankly doesn't break anything.
That's where our opinions differ.
While for a melee character Aiding is extremely costly (melee characters lack actions and reactions), for a ranged character it just costs you a third action and a useless reaction. The cost is negligible. If you can do it using an attack roll you also benefit from a bonus that goes automatically up to +3, and even +4 for Fighters (and Gunslingers but they already have Fake out for them). At high level, with the natural action compression archers can gain with Hunted Shot or Flurry of Blows, it's incredible.
On the other hand, it severely nerfs Fake Out, which is in my opinion one of the selling points of the Gunslinger (which is definitely an issue, Gunslingers need some love), and all the feats to Aid (like One For All). And it pushes archers toward some form of "One True playstyle", again a hit on build variation.
So, in my opinion, it significantly impact high level play to the point of being an issue. So, no, I don't allow Aiding a melee attack with a ranged weapon at my table.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Me personally? Of course not. Don't be silly.
No, the GM needs to discuss that with the player doing the Aid attempt. That is the discussion that is needed every time the GM is going to change the typical DC.
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.
You are misunderstanding me.
Yes, every time the character prepares to Aid and does the Aid reaction while on the deck of a boat at sea, the GM can use that narrative to justify increasing the DC.
The inconsistency is when every time Aid is used with no narrative explanation of why this usage of Aid is more difficult than is typical, but the GM is still raising the DC. That isn't a change for a narratively justified 'particularly hard' usage of Aid, that is a houserule change to the typical Aid DC.
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.
I'm thinking it is the other way around. The people most strenuously arguing that the GM can change the DC on a whim are also the ones giving initial statements like this:
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.
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.
They have determined that they don't like how powerful Aid is as written, and so are houseruling it. But for some reason don't want to call the houserule a houserule and so are interpreting the rules text as:
the GM might adjust this DC .
And using that to say
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.
That is not RAW. That is cherry picking the rules text. That is a houserule.
------
Note that the previous discussion in this post of mine is a bit different than the discussion I am using for applying MAP.
For MAP I have a different "that's not RAW" argument.
The subordinate Strike action in Reactive Strike has the Attack trait.
An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action.
However, even though the Strike action in Reactive Strike has the Attack trait, MAP does not apply. Because the rules say that MAP in general does not apply to actions made when it is not your turn.
So adding the Attack trait to the Aid reaction does not cause MAP to apply. Adding the Attack trait to the Aid preparation action does not cause MAP to apply. The check is made when it is not the character's turn, so MAP does not apply.
Adding the Attack trait to the Aid reaction and/or the Aid preparation action is not a houserule.
Using the Attack trait to justify increasing the Aid DC for a check that is made when it is not the character's turn is a houserule. By RAW, MAP does not apply when it is not the character's turn and so cannot be used to narratively justify increasing the typical Aid DC. The existence or not of the Attack trait on the reaction is irrelevant.
-----
It has been several days of discussion on this, and I feel like we are arguing in circles.
If the outcome of a level 15 character using their Expert or Master proficiencies for Aid for a typical usage scenario does not result in a critical success, then the GM has houseruled Aid's typical DC of 15.
I'm resting my case on this matter here.
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?Me personally? Of course not. Don't be silly.
No, the GM needs to discuss that with the player doing the Aid attempt. That is the discussion that is needed every time the GM is going to change the typical DC.
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.You are misunderstanding me.
Yes, every time the character prepares to Aid and does the Aid reaction while on the deck of a boat at sea, the GM can use that narrative to justify increasing the DC.
The inconsistency is when every time Aid is used with no narrative explanation of why this usage of Aid is more difficult than is typical, but the GM is still raising the DC. That isn't a change for a narratively justified 'particularly hard' usage of Aid, that is a houserule change to the typical Aid DC.
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.I'm thinking it is the other way around. The people most strenuously arguing that the GM can change the DC on a whim are also the ones giving initial statements like this:
...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.
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
We might have to just agree to disagree.
I made that hopefully slightly witty joke because we will not find in the rules a reason a GM cannot decide it is particularly hard to aid an ally after striking once or twice with the first two actions in a round when giving aid the attack trait. It is not a house rule to use the line that referring to a GM deciding something is particularly hard or easy.And my point on the reaction was not that MAP is reducing the aid roll but that the GM is determining the MAP from preparation is increasing the DC of the reaction. A decision that is in the GMs hands.
But I will give you this. Even if it was RAW it might still not be the best way to run things if it makes Aid unusable.
from what I was positing aiding would be weighted as any attack action would when its given the attack trait by the GM for that particular kind of use. So no map preparation would be a DC 15 if there is nothing else making it harder or easier. In that way even the conception I was using for my argument still fits into the first of your argument stances, just not the second.
Why would you do that?
Ok, let's answer that.
The rules about Aid indicate that you can add whatever trait you want to both the Preparation and/or the reaction. So, when a player wants to Aid through an Attack Roll, I give the Attack trait to Aid. And the Attack trait is affected by MAP.Aid looks exactly like Ready: You need to pay actions to prepare and then get a Reaction that you can use to Aid. So I consider that it should have the same behavior: If you use an Attack to Aid then you should suffer from MAP.
From a very strict RAW point of view, giving the Attack trait to the Aid reaction itself doesn't apply MAP. But the Aid reaction gives me leeway to increase its difficulty if tasks are harder. And penalties are clearly making a task harder.
So, from that moment on, I don't care about Preparation/Strike/Strike or Strike/Strike/Preparation. As you have performed 2 Strikes during your round you have full MAP and as such the difficulty of the Aid check will be increased to take that into account.
Simple, I just tell the player that an Aid through an Attack will be affected by MAP.
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.
Side note, I also finally figured out a scenario where I would lower the DC.
If the enemy that my ally is attacking is Prone and I am doing something to aid their attack roll. As the GM I would allow the -2 penalty from being Off-Guard due to being Prone to apply to the Aid DC, reducing it to 13.
I wouldn't do that for flanking or a lot of other sources of Off-Guard, but being Prone would make it particularly easy to do something like step on them or their shield to hold them in place and Aid an ally attacking them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is Bob the fighter aiding by a reaction 'attack' (which does no damage) harder than Bob the fighter striking by a reaction attack?
It's not harder. The closest rule to Aid is Ready which applies MAP.
I have no issue with people not playing it like that. But my intention is clear and motivated by actual rules. We can disagree, but there's no reason to not understand why I do it.
So, when a player wants to Aid through an Attack Roll, I give the Attack trait to Aid. And the Attack trait is affected by MAP.Attacks taken as part of your turn are affected by MAP. Attacks made as reactions done during someone else's turn are not.
But I think we may be arguing in circles, as this exact point was brought up by another poster earlier in the conversation.
But the Aid reaction gives me leeway to increase its difficulty if tasks are harder. And penalties are clearly making a task harder.Agreed, as the GM you have the choice to increase the difficulty if tasks are harder.
Why is Bob the fighter aiding by a reaction 'attack' (which does no damage) harder than Bob the fighter striking by a reaction attack? I will presume you don't add MAP to the latter, so why are you adding it to the former?
I feel like this was said before but what is aid more alike? Is it more alike readying an action or more like reactive strike?
One is a class feature of the fighter and takes a feat for other classes to obtain, the other is a general action anyone can use without any investment.
I wouldnt think aid is comparable to reactive strike.
Though it is more like readying an action both in cost(actually its cheaper) and in investment to be able to use.
And of course its different in ways from either of them with instructions to the GM to make a judgment call on difficulty.
Which is why i dont fault the gm that decides either way on it.
I feel like this was said before but what is aid more alike? Is it more alike readying an action or more like reactive strike?
Ehh... It is more similar to Embodiment of Battle.
Just because you have to spend an action during your turn casting or sustaining Embodiment of Battle doesn't mean that the reaction has MAP applied.
I feel like this was said before but what is aid more alike? Is it more alike readying an action or more like reactive strike?Ehh... It is more similar to Embodiment of Battle.
Just because you have to spend an action during your turn casting or sustaining Embodiment of Battle doesn't mean that the reaction has MAP applied.
I'm guessing that was humor.
That would be comparing a generally available action with no investment cost to a focus spell from a class feature. They are not similar in power, cost, and availability.But readying an action just like aid is a generally available action anyone can use with no investment. I think that is the bigger sticking point.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And there's an RAI logic to it: It follows the rules for Ready.
Aid != Ready
As they are two distinct and separate actions, with their own rules, it is not logical to assume that the intent is that they follow the same rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As they are two distinct and separate actions, with their own rules, it is not logical to assume that the intent is that they follow the same rules.
Aid specifically indicates that you can add any trait you want to the preparation or the reaction. And most traits are either weird for an aid (Move for example) or useless (all the Linguistic, Visual, etc... are already covered by the fact that the GM is supposed to indicate if you can perform the Aid or not). The elephant in the room is Attack. That's why I use this rule, because I feel an intent that Aid should work like Ready.
Also, I love when some of you use the argument that Aid should work like "other reaction attacks" but then you bring the argument that it shouldn't work like Ready (which is the closest reaction attack to Aid in the game).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aid looks exactly like Ready: ...
No, it doesn't. If it did, there'd be no reason to separate them.
Aid:
Ready:
So I consider that it should have the same behavior: If you use an Attack to Aid then you should suffer from MAP.
Different mechanics. Different behavior. That is standard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is Bob the fighter aiding by a reaction 'attack' (which does no damage) harder than Bob the fighter striking by a reaction attack?It's not harder. The closest rule to Aid is Ready which applies MAP.
Ready has specific language to apply the MAP to a Readied Strike. Aid lacks any such language. It is entirely houserule land to read a rule from one mechanic (Ready) into another mechanic (Aid) lacking that rule simply because they are similar.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I love when some of you use the argument that Aid should work like "other reaction attacks" but then you bring the argument that it shouldn't work like Ready (which is the closest reaction attack to Aid in the game).
You are listing the similarities with Ready, but you are blissfully ignoring the differences.
The most notable difference being that Ready states:
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.
And Aid doesn't.
You do know what it is called when you present a comparison as part of an argument and only include the parts that support your argument and ignore the parts that don't, right?
That's called Cherry Picking.
Also, at what point have you supported the idea of needing to look at Ready? Is Aid not already fully defined all by itself? Why do we need to look at Ready in order to understand how Aid is supposed to work?
Why can we not instead just look at the general rules for MAP and Reactions?
Ready has specific language to apply the MAP to a Readied Strike. Aid lacks any such language. It is entirely houserule land to read a rule from one mechanic (Ready) into another mechanic (Aid) lacking that rule simply because they are similar.Why is Bob the fighter aiding by a reaction 'attack' (which does no damage) harder than Bob the fighter striking by a reaction attack?It's not harder. The closest rule to Aid is Ready which applies MAP.
As stated earlier in the thread the GM is not changing the bonus to roll for the pc.
The rules say to determine if 15 is appropriate or if the aid is particularly harder or easier than that.The GM is just determining having MAP when preparing the aid is a qualifying situation for increasing the DC. The GM is also giving the attack trait to the aid actions which is also allowed by the written rules, and by the rules having the attack trait doesn't reduce the bonus for the reaction when using it to aid. The pc is keeping their full bonus to the aid check.
None of this is in houserule land.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As they are two distinct and separate actions, with their own rules, it is not logical to assume that the intent is that they follow the same rules.Aid specifically indicates that you can add any trait you want to the preparation or the reaction.
That is irrelevant. Adding the Attack trait to an Aid reaction does not change the Aid reaction into a Readied Action. An Aid to attack does not perform a Strike. It is an attack roll that may grant a bonus to a willing ally's Strike.
Conversely, a Readied Strike is a Strike. If the attack rolls is successful, it will deal Strike damage to the target, but, otherwise, has no direct benefit to an ally.
The only similarity between Aid and Ready is that the player is exchanging one or more actions on their turn to gain a custom reaction.
That's why I use this rule, because I feel an intent that Aid should work like Ready.
Key words: "I feel."
Also, I love when some of you use the argument that Aid should work like "other reaction attacks" but then you bring the argument that it shouldn't work like Ready (which is the closest reaction attack to Aid in the game).
/sigh
Ready has specific language -- heck, a specific paragraph to that point -- that overrides the general rule for MAP. Aid does not have any such language.
It is illogical to infer intent when one dedicates a paragraph to highlight the exception to the general rule while the other has no hint of such.
Furthermore, a Readied reaction attack is not close to a reaction attack to Aid. The former targets an enemy with either a Strike, a one-action Attack Spell, or an Athletics maneuver. It will have a direct impact on an enemy. The latter does nothing to an enemy directly. Instead, it grants a bonus to an ally. These two things are not remotely close to each other.
As they are two distinct and separate actions, with their own rules, it is not logical to assume that the intent is that they follow the same rules.Aid specifically indicates that you can add any trait you want to the preparation or the reaction.That is irrelevant. Adding the Attack trait to an Aid reaction does not change the Aid reaction into a Readied Action. An Aid to attack does not perform a Strike. It is an attack roll that may grant a bonus to a willing ally's Strike.
Conversely, a Readied Strike is a Strike. If the attack rolls is successful, it will deal Strike damage to the target, but, otherwise, has no direct benefit to an ally.
The only similarity between Aid and Ready is that the player is exchanging one or more actions on their turn to gain a custom reaction.
That's why I use this rule, because I feel an intent that Aid should work like Ready.Key words: "I feel."
Also, I love when some of you use the argument that Aid should work like "other reaction attacks" but then you bring the argument that it shouldn't work like Ready (which is the closest reaction attack to Aid in the game)./sigh
Ready has specific language -- heck, a specific paragraph to that point -- that overrides the general rule for MAP. Aid does not have any such language.
It is illogical to infer intent when one dedicates a paragraph to highlight the exception to the general rule while the other has no hint of such.
Furthermore, a Readied reaction attack is not close to a reaction attack to Aid. The former targets an enemy with either a Strike, a one-action Attack Spell, or an Athletics maneuver. It will have a direct impact on an enemy. The latter does nothing to an enemy directly. Instead, it grants a bonus to an ally. These two things are not remotely close to each other.
Can you provide an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike?
I'm guessing many explanations will be something they are doing to the enemy to help their ally get a hit in.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As stated earlier in the thread the GM is not changing the bonus to roll for the pc.
You are splitting hairs. Increasing the DC for the check is functionally equivalent to giving a penalty on the check. Saying otherwise is disingenuous.
The rules say to determine if 15 is appropriate or if the aid is particularly harder or easier than that.
The GM is just determining having MAP when preparing the aid is a qualifying situation for increasing the DC.
We understand that.
Now justify why that is harder.
Because to me, that scenario is the typical use case for Aid. You are Aiding an ally's attack with your own weapon swing or other attack action.
There is nothing about that scenario that is not typical.
If you are saying that there is - what is it?
You seem to be claiming that you are making the Aid attack as part of your attack routine during your turn. You don't. You are making your attack out of turn as a reaction - where MAP doesn't apply.
So why is it harder to make an attack out of turn for one reason than it is to make an attack out of turn for a different reason?
Does Reactive Strike have MAP applied? Does Stand Still? Does Implement's Interruption? Are any one of these 'particularly hard' compared to the others?
Readied attacks do have MAP applied because Ready overrides the general rule.
But give one single RAW rules argument reason why Aid should have MAP apply.
Otherwise admit that applying MAP to Aid is a houserule.
Can you provide an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike?
I'm guessing many explanations will be something they are doing to the enemy to help their ally get a hit in.
Deception Check to distract the target a la Create a Diversion's flavor text, "With a gesture, a trick, or some distracting words, you can create a diversion that draws creatures' attention elsewhere."
Regardless, you're trying to get me into an "Ah ha! See!" moment regarding my distinction between a Readied action directly affecting an enemy and an Aid reaction that does not. It won't work. (Whether it is a disingenuous effort remains to be seen.)
A Readied attack action has a direct, mechanical effect on an enemy. It does damage, grabs/trips/shoves, etc an enemy. A Readied attack action against an enemy has no direct, mechanical effect on an ally.
Regardless of what the Aid action is describing it does to the enemy, it has no direct, mechanical effect on the enemy. The direct, mechanical effect is on the ally.
That is a huge distinction.
Can you provide an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike?
I'm guessing many explanations will be something they are doing to the enemy to help their ally get a hit in.
Deception Check to distract the target a la Create a Diversions flavor text, "With a gesture, a trick, or some distracting words, you can create a diversion that draws creatures' attention elsewhere."
Regardless, you're trying to get me into an "Ah ha! See!" moment regarding my distinction between a Readied action directly affecting an enemy and an Aid reaction that does not. It won't work. (Whether it is a disingenuous effort remains to be seen.)
A Readied attack action has a direct, mechanical effect on an enemy. It does damage, grabs/trips/shoves, etc an enemy. Regardless of what the Aid action is describing is does to the enemy, it has no direct, mechanical effect on the enemy. The direct, mechanical effect is on the ally. And that is a huge distinction.
No I was upfront about my intent behind asking the question by saying what I thought would be the common response to it. So it was not an attempt at a gotcha or disingenuous.
Worked or not is weird way to think of it. Also Im a bit confused there is your pc using create a distraction (I meant diversion I get that name mixed up all the time) instead of aid?Were talking about using the attack form of aid such that the GM has decided it should have the attack trait.
No I was upfront about my intent behind asking the question by saying what I thought would be the common response to it. So it was not an attempt at a gotcha or disingenuous.Can you provide an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike?
I'm guessing many explanations will be something they are doing to the enemy to help their ally get a hit in.
Deception Check to distract the target a la Create a Diversions flavor text, "With a gesture, a trick, or some distracting words, you can create a diversion that draws creatures' attention elsewhere."
Regardless, you're trying to get me into an "Ah ha! See!" moment regarding my distinction between a Readied action directly affecting an enemy and an Aid reaction that does not. It won't work. (Whether it is a disingenuous effort remains to be seen.)
A Readied attack action has a direct, mechanical effect on an enemy. It does damage, grabs/trips/shoves, etc an enemy. Regardless of what the Aid action is describing is does to the enemy, it has no direct, mechanical effect on the enemy. The direct, mechanical effect is on the ally. And that is a huge distinction.
Fair enough.
Also Im a bit confused there is your pc using create a distraction (I meant diversion I get that name mixed up all the time) instead of aid?
Mea culpa. I wasn't clear in presenting my, "example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike." So, let me clarify it.
On my turn, I declare my intention (prep action) to Aid an ally's attack describing my assistance as distracting the enemy's attention. Then on my ally's turn, as my reaction I roll a Deception Check to Aid. I clear the DC 15, narratively distract the enemy enough that my ally's strike is easier to land. Thus, mechanically, my ally gains a +1 circumstance bonus to his attack.
Were talking about using the attack form of aid such that the GM has decided it should have the attack trait.
You asked for "an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike." I gave you an example. You did not specify that you wanted an example that the GM might grant the preparatory action or Aid reaction the Attack trait.
No I was upfront about my intent behind asking the question by saying what I thought would be the common response to it. So it was not an attempt at a gotcha or disingenuous.Can you provide an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike?
I'm guessing many explanations will be something they are doing to the enemy to help their ally get a hit in.
Deception Check to distract the target a la Create a Diversions flavor text, "With a gesture, a trick, or some distracting words, you can create a diversion that draws creatures' attention elsewhere."
Regardless, you're trying to get me into an "Ah ha! See!" moment regarding my distinction between a Readied action directly affecting an enemy and an Aid reaction that does not. It won't work. (Whether it is a disingenuous effort remains to be seen.)
A Readied attack action has a direct, mechanical effect on an enemy. It does damage, grabs/trips/shoves, etc an enemy. Regardless of what the Aid action is describing is does to the enemy, it has no direct, mechanical effect on the enemy. The direct, mechanical effect is on the ally. And that is a huge distinction.
Fair enough.
Also Im a bit confused there is your pc using create a distraction (I meant diversion I get that name mixed up all the time) instead of aid?Mea culpa. I wasn't clear in presenting my, "example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike." So, let me clarify it.
On my turn, I declare my intention (prep action) to Aid an ally's attack describing my assistance as distracting the enemy's attention. Then on my ally's turn, as my reaction I roll a Deception Check to Aid. I clear the DC 15, narratively distract the enemy enough that my...
You would allow a deception roll to add to an ally's + to hit with a strike?
I typically require a like action, like deception can be used to aid feint or create a diversion.An attack roll would be used to aid an attack. Some even restrict it to a melee attack to aid a melee attack.
But I guess another GM might see using deception just as specific to the task at hand but I am not sure it is because deception skills typically achieve different results that + to hit. And yes I am saying achieving the off guard condition from feint as different from a + to hit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally wouldn't allow deception to aid an attack, as the general rule is you use the same skill to aid as the person is using, and you need to buy exceptions with feats (e.g., One for All). If you're more of a "yes, but..." kind of GM, you could allow it at a fairly steep penalty like -5, or perhaps even -10 given that Cooperative Nature exists. But just allowing it with no exceptions is barging in on OFA Swash's territory.
The closest rule to Aid is Ready which applies MAP.There is no need to use any "closest rule" proxy to determine how Aid works, because Aid has it's own rules.
Quoted b/c it bears repeating.
You would allow a deception roll to add to an ally's + to hit with a strike?
Absolutely. As long as it is narratively appropriate, why not?
I typically require a like action, like deception can be used to aid feint or create a diversion.
Why? There's nothing in the Aid rules that require a like action. I'd let the Bard roll Performance to "draw attention" to himself to aid Create a Diversion in a heartbeat.
All that the Aid rules really require is that the preparation be specific and relevant and that the character be in a proper position. Nothing in the Aid rules nor the Aid reaction require that the Aid roll be a like action.
I personally wouldn't allow deception to aid an attack, as the general rule is you use the same skill to aid as the person is using...
No, that is not the general rule. Please see my preceding post.
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.
That doesn't seem to be the case. A couple times I crit succeeded against 15, which would have been at least a success had the GM been assuming DC 20 instead. Yet, he said I had failed altogether.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you provide an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike?
I'm guessing many explanations will be something they are doing to the enemy to help their ally get a hit in.
Since you followed up with your observation that a cross-topic was, "talking about using the attack form of aid such that the GM has decided it should have the attack trait," I've given thought to such an example.
Monica the Monk Ki Rushes the BBEG and flurries with Flurry of Maneuvers, striking but failing to Trip the BBEG. Now, she knows that Barbara the Barbarian is going to Rage then Sudden Charge the BBEG. So, instead of stepping away or attempting to Trip the BBEG again, Monica the Monk prepares to shoulder-check the BBEG to knock him off balance to Aid Barbara the Barbarian's Strike at the end of the Sudden Charge. End turn.
Barbara the Barbarian, predictably, Rages and Sudden Charges the BBEG. At the end of her movement when she is about to Strike, Monica the Monk takes her Aid reaction. The GM determines that the description "shoulder-check the BBEG to knock him off balance" is similar enough to the Shove action that he calls for an Athletics check with the Attack trait. Monica the Monk rolls Athletics and, between the die roll and proficiency, scores a 26. "Critical Success!" declares the GM, and, since Monica the Monk is a master in Athletics, Barbara the Barbarian gains a +3 circumstance bonus to her Strike.
There is zero reason, in this example, following the Aid rules to apply MAP here.
Furthermore, there is no good reason, following the Aid rules, to increase the difficulty of the Aid check simply because it has the Attack trait and Monica the Monk made two Attack actions on her round. The base function of Aid is to "try to help your ally with a task" with the trigger "An ally is about to use an action that requires a skill check or attack roll" (bold emphasis mine). Since the base function is to help an ally with a skill check or attack roll, then the base DC is the base DC to Aid an ally's attack roll.
Certainly other factors may make the task more difficult triggering "the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks." Such circumstances might include Monica the Monk trying the same trick next round getting into Repetition under Aid Details. Or, the BBEG is Gargantuan. But simply giving the Aid reaction the Attack trait doesn't suddenly make the task "particularly hard" nor does it justify ignoring the general rule regard the MAP when it isn't your turn, and it certainly doesn't justify invoking the MAP general rule exception explicitly stated in Ready since Monica the Monk didn't use Ready; she used Aid.
Can you provide an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike?
I'm guessing many explanations will be something they are doing to the enemy to help their ally get a hit in.
Since you followed up with your observation that a cross-topic was, "talking about using the attack form of aid such that the GM has decided it should have the attack trait," I've given thought to such an example.
Monica the Monk Ki Rushes the BBEG and flurries with Flurry of Maneuvers, striking but failing to Trip the BBEG. Now, she knows that Barbara the Barbarian is going to Rage then Sudden Charge the BBEG. So, instead of stepping away or attempting to Trip the BBEG again, Monica the Monk prepares to shoulder-check the BBEG to knock him off balance to Aid Barbara the Barbarian's Strike at the end of the Sudden Charge. End turn.
Barbara the Barbarian, predictably, Rages and Sudden Charges the BBEG. At the end of her movement when she is about to Strike, Monica the Monk takes her Aid reaction. The GM determines that the description "shoulder-check the BBEG to knock him off balance" is similar enough to the Shove action that he calls for an Athletics check with the Attack trait. Monica the Monk rolls Athletics and, between the die roll and proficiency, scores a 26. "Critical Success!" declares the GM, and, since Monica the Monk is a master in Athletics, Barbara the Barbarian gains a +3 circumstance bonus to her Strike.
There is zero reason, in this example, following the Aid rules to apply MAP here.
The preparatory action does not require a roll. Thus, it neither suffers from nor adds to the MAP, even if the GM gives the prep action the Attack trait. The Athletics roll as a reaction, even with the Attack trait, per the...
The bonus of the pc is not being lowered by MAP so the rule for reactions is being observed.
The difference in that scenario is the DC would not be 15 since the focus of the monks round was on attacking the opponent not on aiding an ally. Now the monk would have still succeeded on the roll with that 26 but it would not be a crit success so they only provide a +1 to their ally. If the monk wanted to give the big bonuses that a crit would yield their best bet would have been to use an action to aid with the attack trait first before using other actions that increase MAP.To be clear if a GM gives the attack trait to aid and the action is taken first that would raise MAP for subsequent attack actions and that is within the rules. And there is no point in giving aid the attack trait at all if the GM is not increasing the DC of the aid check because players will always always use it with a last action so applying the attack trait has no consequence.
If a GM is using the attack trait at all then increasing the DC according to the MAP at time of prep makes things reciprocal.
Doing things this way is not a house rule.
The DC increase is within rules as particularly hard. if the monk wants the 15 DC to aid make aid the first attack action for the round and take MAP for subsequent attacks.
It has nothing to do with the rules for reactions not applying MAP. Those rules are referring to lowering the pc bonus to hit. There is no lowering to hit going on at all for the aid reaction.
Also I am not saying a GM cannot run things as written the way you described it. What have said is both interpretations are within the rules.
That doesn't seem to be the case. A couple times I crit succeeded against 15, which would have been at least a success had the GM been assuming DC 20 instead. Yet, he said I had failed altogether.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.
So in other words, The GM does change the DC depending on the way you aid and how hard said thing would be?
Sounds like there is a bit of communication that isnt happening here such as how the GM chooses the DC. Probably selecting based on level or simple DC.
Ravingdork I would ask your GM does my character understand if this aid action is harder than normal? At least then you could decide if its worth trying.
The bonus of the pc is not being lowered by MAP so the rule for reactions is being observed.
I'm curious. Did you cut my quote after my bullets for not applying the MAP on purpose or was that the forums truncating longer quotes?
The difference in that scenario is the DC would not be 15 since the focus of the monks round was on attacking the opponent not on aiding an ally...
So, you completely ignored everything I wrote (that was omitted in your quote). Got it.
That's sloppy logic. Nothing in the Aid rules say that Aid is made "particularly hard" because the character was focused on something other than aiding an ally. By the logic implicit in, "The difference in that scenario is the DC would not be 15 since the focus of the monks round was on attacking the opponent not on aiding an ally," then the DC can never be 15 unless the character spends all of their actions (i.e focusing on aiding) preparing to aid an ally.
Erego, the base DC of Aiding an attack roll is 15. Adding the Attack trait to the prep action or the Aid reaction check doesn't change that whatsoever.
... If the monk wanted to give the big bonuses that a crit would yield their best bet would have been to use an action to aid with the attack trait first before using other actions that increase MAP.
Now that's just plain silly. Absolutely nothing in the rules for Aid state or imply that the difficulty of the Aid reaction check is in any way based on the order of operations during the aiding players turn.
Adjudicating Aid difficulty based on the order of operation (third action vs. first action) is absolutely a house rule.
To be clear if a GM gives the attack trait to aid and the action is taken first that would raise MAP for subsequent attack actions and that is within the rules.
I assume that you are referring the GM giving the Attack trait to the preparatory action taken to set up the Aid reaction. Sure. If someone is dumb enough to do that first, their subsequent attack actions, technically, will suffer the MAP.
And there is no point in giving aid the attack trait at all...
You're absolutely correct.
... if the GM is not increasing the DC of the aid check because players will always always use it with a last action so applying the attack trait has no consequence.
Read the Aid Rules. Nothing... absolutely nothing... in the rules suggest that there should be consequences for preparing to Aid as a third action for any reason. Unlike Ready, Aid does not say anything about attack actions or the Attack trait making it any harder or applying at the time the character takes their reaction.
So, the GM increasing the DC of the Aid check simply because it was the third action for prep and the GM gave it the Attack trait in order to apply a consequence to a third-action Aid prep is absolutely a house rule.
The bonus of the pc is not being lowered by MAP so the rule for reactions is being observed.I'm curious. Did you cut my quote after my bullets for not applying the MAP on purpose or was that the forums truncating longer quotes?
The difference in that scenario is the DC would not be 15 since the focus of the monks round was on attacking the opponent not on aiding an ally...So, you completely ignored everything I wrote (that was omitted in your quote). Got it.
That's sloppy logic. Nothing in the Aid rules say that Aid is made "particularly hard" because the character was focused on something other than aiding an ally. By the logic implicit in, "The difference in that scenario is the DC would not be 15 since the focus of the monks round was on attacking the opponent not on aiding an ally," then the DC can never be 15 unless the character spends all of their actions (i.e focusing on aiding) preparing to aid an ally.
The base DC of Aid is 15 regardless of any other actions, or order of actions, the character takes on their round.
The base function of Aid is to assist an ally making a skill check or attack roll. Erego, the base DC of Aiding an attack roll is 15. Adding the Attack trait to the prep action or the Aid reaction check doesn't change that whatsoever.
... If the monk wanted to give the big bonuses that a crit would yield their best bet would have been to use an action to aid with the attack trait first before using other actions that increase MAP.Now that's just plain silly. Absolutely nothing in the rules for Aid state or imply that the difficulty of the Aid reaction check is in any way based on the order of operations during the aiding players turn.
Adjudicating Aid difficulty based on the order of operation (third action vs. first action) is absolutely a house rule.
To be clear if a GM gives the...
Forum cut it.
snip
You're correct to call me out on this. But looking at it more closely, the game actually doesn't seem to give any guidance on what skills aid what checks. And as per aid, the GM is ultimately the one who decides what skill will be used.
I'd say that this result is actually worse. The GM is free to let you use your tea-serving skills to aid a dinnertime diplomacy check by RAW, which is a win, I admit. (Though, fwiw, I think a lot of DMs of 1E would've let this through anyways.) But you might not actually be allowed to help someone else lockpick with your own thievery skill if the DM thinks it sounds silly to have two people trying to pick a lock at once; I consider this a loss. Instead of there being some shared baseline expectation, there are now no shared baseline expectations at all. It's all calvinball negotiations and the GM has the final say, which is pretty uncharacteristic for the system.
The passage in GM core doesn't actually change this:
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.
There's actually nothing here that implies anything about what checks are and aren't appropriate; it just reinforces GM fiat. There is a knock against ranged aid for attacks in here, though—I should probably give SuperBidi's arguments grudging credit for that.
===
So yeah, it's not RAW for me to say that the same skill aiding is a "default." But there is no default at all, instead! That scarcely seems better.
I suppose it's another thing for the houserules doc.
What a great quantity of Internet ink for... nothing.
Do I want to apply MAP to Aid? Yes, because I see an intent in the rules.
Can I by following the rules? Yes.
So why so much back and forth discussion? We don't read the same intent, which is fine.You won't prove me wrong because you just can't, rules allow me to use my ruling. Both our rulings are legitimate. So we should just agree to disagree.
Rules about using the same skill or being limited to melee range Aid comes from PF1 (and D&D3 before that). I must admit I'm used to these rules and as such continue to use them (they existed because they made sense and as such continune to make sense for me).
Now, it's clear there's not much guidance on how to run Aid. Table variation has to be expected, it'll be much easier around some tables and much harder around others.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because this isn't forbidden in the game mechanically and frankly doesn't break anything.That's where our opinions differ.
While for a melee character Aiding is extremely costly (melee characters lack actions and reactions), for a ranged character it just costs you a third action and a useless reaction. The cost is negligible. If you can do it using an attack roll you also benefit from a bonus that goes automatically up to +3, and even +4 for Fighters (and Gunslingers but they already have Fake out for them). At high level, with the natural action compression archers can gain with Hunted Shot or Flurry of Blows, it's incredible.
On the other hand, it severely nerfs Fake Out, which is in my opinion one of the selling points of the Gunslinger (which is definitely an issue, Gunslingers need some love), and all the feats to Aid (like One For All). And it pushes archers toward some form of "One True playstyle", again a hit on build variation.
So, in my opinion, it significantly impact high level play to the point of being an issue. So, no, I don't allow Aiding a melee attack with a ranged weapon at my table.
Honestly, it sounds like you've placed a very high value on One For All and Fake Out on ranged builds, and are now trying to justify that value by keeping any alternative weak. One For All has the inherent advantage of always working in basically all combat situations (to compare to our current example, you don't need to have line of sight on your enemy to make the attack roll), always using your Diplomacy (which you can always have at maximum proficiency, will always have maxed-out item bonuses for), has the bravado trait to give you panache, and it is completely applicable outside of combat as well as in - it's a very good feat with those benefits even if you run Aid in a fairly permissive way. I'm currently playing in a campaign where Aid is run permissively and I use One for All frequently still, and don't regret it. Perhaps it'll be less common for someone to take the Swashbuckler archetype when they're uninterested in anything but One For All, but that honestly seems like a good outcome to me. There's also the consistency provided by being an explicit mechanical option like One For All - if you keep Aiding with attack rolls, I'll start boosting the DC; if you keep repeatedly intentionally shooting near but not hitting an enemy, they'll eventually focus on the real attack a little more easily. I'm not going to do that for something like One For All. Fake Out is obviously even better; it doesn't require an action to prepare, and it doesn't require you to specify a benefiting ally ahead of the reaction. I don't think anyone who would qualify for using Fake Out would not pick up the feat because someone else can occasionally aid using their attack roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree the rules let you apply any numerical penalty you want. I don't agree with your reasoning or your contention that the rules are supposed to work that way.
Great!
IMO getting the RAW wrong.
...
"Everything Before The But Is A Lie"As a side note:
The argument is that the Aid roll IS a reaction. Which it is. You don't disagree, do you?
I do disagree. Aid is composed of a Preparation and an Aid reaction. These are 2 actions sanctioned by a single roll. It's not just a reaction, it's more complicated than that.
And not seeing the comparison with Ready which is the only other ability in the whole game I can think of that also has both an action and a reaction cost is crazy to me.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, it sounds like you've placed a very high value on One For All and Fake Out on ranged builds, and are now trying to justify that value by keeping any alternative weak. One For All has the inherent advantage of always working in basically all combat situations (to compare to our current example, you don't need to have line of sight on your enemy to make the attack roll), always using your Diplomacy (which you can always have at maximum proficiency, will always have maxed-out item bonuses for), has the bravado trait to give you panache, and it is completely applicable outside of combat as well as in - it's a very good feat with those benefits even if you run Aid in a fairly permissive way. I'm currently playing in a campaign where Aid is run permissively and I use One for All frequently still, and don't regret it. Perhaps it'll be...Because this isn't forbidden in the game mechanically and frankly doesn't break anything.That's where our opinions differ.
While for a melee character Aiding is extremely costly (melee characters lack actions and reactions), for a ranged character it just costs you a third action and a useless reaction. The cost is negligible. If you can do it using an attack roll you also benefit from a bonus that goes automatically up to +3, and even +4 for Fighters (and Gunslingers but they already have Fake out for them). At high level, with the natural action compression archers can gain with Hunted Shot or Flurry of Blows, it's incredible.
On the other hand, it severely nerfs Fake Out, which is in my opinion one of the selling points of the Gunslinger (which is definitely an issue, Gunslingers need some love), and all the feats to Aid (like One For All). And it pushes archers toward some form of "One True playstyle", again a hit on build variation.
So, in my opinion, it significantly impact high level play to the point of being an issue. So, no, I don't allow Aiding a melee attack with a ranged weapon at my table.
In fact, it all comes down to how much the GM thinks the benefit of Aid is too high, especially compared to the standard DC and the high bonus provided by high proficiencies, and starts wanting to nerf it based on the situations where he finds it most unfair.
I agreed with this, until it was presented to me (I think it was by Finoan, I don't remember exactly anymore) that the opportunity cost of Aid is quite high, since when you consider that losing the third action and a reaction is basically penalizing for any character to the point that even with the high bonus and low DC and being done at a distance, Aid ends up not being worth it given the cost of the reaction and/or the third action.
Some examples:
The general context I wanted to present with this list, although many will probably question it on several points, is that Aid, even with all its benefits, still falls by default into an opportunity cost where it is only used when the character no longer has something better to use. Penalizing it even more will only penalize these characters even more.
The general context I wanted to present with this list, although many will probably question it on several points, is that Aid, even with all its benefits, still falls by default into an opportunity cost where it is only used when the character no longer has something better to use. Penalizing it even more will only penalize these characters even more.
That's not true.
If I take a very simple example: A Wizard who happens to carry a bow and uses their third action to Aid their Greatsword Barbarian player first attack. On paper, it's not the most impressive use of Aid one can think of, it's still as good as the same Wizard with maxed out Dexterity and a fully Runed Bow (including Elemental Runes) making an attack but with no character investment but level.
If this Wizard starts giving a +3, or even better a +4, because the GM is nice it becomes the de facto third action as it now competes with a martial second attack.
At high level, Aid has the potential to really disrupt the game strategy by becoming the single best third action with no competition. All of that at absolutely no character cost.
So I highly disagree when people say it's not disruptive. All it takes is a permissive GM and a bunch of optimizers to turn it into a real high level issue.
Now the fact that it can only be a problem at high level really hides the issue.