Just to round out, I don't think the developers intended much when they wrote Aid, Especially as I found an old interview with Mark Seifter stating that the reason as to why they just said "DC 20, Adjust as needed" was not mechanical, It was about rules complexity and not being able to quickly identify suitable level/difficulty for certain tasks as it is that open ended.
Simply put, Instead of referencing tables and making alot of examples as to how they wanted it to work. They decided to just have it be an action that is fully adjudicated. Essentially.
"We believe DC20(expert DC) will be the most common."
"This works in most cases, GM can change the action as they please"
This is the way
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the wayJust to round out, I don't think the developers intended much when they wrote Aid, Especially as I found an old interview with Mark Seifter stating that the reason as to why they just said "DC 20, Adjust as needed" was not mechanical, It was about rules complexity and not being able to quickly identify suitable level/difficulty for certain tasks as it is that open ended.
Simply put, Instead of referencing tables and making alot of examples as to how they wanted it to work. They decided to just have it be an action that is fully adjudicated. Essentially.
"We believe DC20(expert DC) will be the most common."
"This works in most cases, GM can change the action as they please"
Which is basically saying "This is made for the GM to decide how it works, if you're just shooting from the hip, DC 20".
And that's fine if you're players don't use Aid often.
If it becomes a common tactic, you might want to sharpen your pencil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds like a variation of "You are just being rude".It is. Bolding, as if we were not able to read or understand the rules, is rude. Sorry to state it.
April is Autism Awareness Month, so I am making you aware.
Define 'rude'. People tell me that a lot - that I am being rude to them.
So far, no one has ever given a definition of what 'rude' means. The most accurate definition I have come up with on my own is, "I don't like what you are saying so I am going to claim to everyone around me that you are a bad person so that they will ignore what you say."
It is the ultimate ad-hominem attack. A mentality of 'I have no defense, so I'll attack instead.'
So if you have a better definition, I'd love to see it.
That isn't logic. That is just an attempt to shame someone else into leaving an argument.I am the one leaving the argument. I don't think there's anything else to add. Which is certainly the reason why you end up bolding text, because rational arguments have run dry.
That is a remarkably big assumption on the purpose of my choice of text formatting.
I'm using bolding to identify the part that I feel like people are ignoring.
I still maintain that there is a difference in the rules statements:
1) "the GM might adjust this DC"
and
2) "the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks"
The only way that I can interpret the addition of that bolded set of words in this rule is to assign an expectation to the GM that they need to justify adjustments to the Aid DC. The GM needs to be able to explain in a satisfactory manner why the player's particular usage of Aid in this case is harder than typical. If instead the player's usage of Aid is a typical usage of Aid, then the GM should be using the typical DC.
If you think that the bolded text is extraneous and can be omitted without changing the meaning, then let's hear it. Why does the phrase "for particularly hard or easy tasks" have no meaning?
I don't accept your statement without evidence that "I'm not ignoring the rules, and I am still running by RAW". Explain how that bolded phrase is being used in your position that the GM is allowed by RAW to, for example, use the DC by level table permanently, or arbitrarily decide that MAP applies to the Aid process.
Calling me 'rude' for my formatting choices doesn't make my logic go away.
I agree with Bidi that the only thing that really looks RAW in Aid is the action cost.The reaction cost. The preparation can take any time, it only "usually" takes an action during your turn. Free action preparation is largely possible, even if no one thinks about it. The GM can also force you to use more than one action to prepare for an Aid.
So, although there is no emphasis, it is already kind of settled that at least 1-action of preparation is needed. Less than that (i.e. a free action) is in practice the same thing as not needing to prepare and since the only standard free action in the game is speaking, anything else the game strongly reinforces that it must cost at least one action. In addition to the entry for "Long Tasks" saying that preparation can be increased, nowhere does it say to reduce it to a free action (or even another reaction), because it simply does not fit well into the general rules of the game.
Reducing Aid's preparation to less than 1-action is something that I do not think is even up for discussion.
There's also another thing that is not stated in Aid: The time separating the Preparation from the Aid. For example, if I decide to grab some dirt and throw it at the enemy's face to distract them from an ally, it looks like a valid way to Aid (GM as the final say, obviously, but I can see GMs allowing it). Preparation would be to grab the dirt and Reaction would be to throw it. But there's no need for the Preparation to happen on the same round I throw the dirt, I could even do it before the fight even starts as long as I don't do anything else with my hand.
I could even go further in this direction: There are Alchemical Items like Sneezing Powder, Dark Pepper Powder or Mustard Powder that can replace easily the aforemention dirt, pushing to use Crafting for the skill check to determine the effectiveness of the Aid. A Bestial Mutagenist can easily have 2 hands free for 2 Aid reactions with their best skill without the need for Preparation during the fight. Sick!
Honestly, I don't see a big problem. It's not much different from a monk/caster who starts with a consumable in each hand so he doesn't have to spend an action to draw it. It's a natural advantage that free hands provide for characters in several aspects, having an Aid prepared in advance would be just one of them.
That's why I dislike the lack of directions of Aid used during combat. It's so loose players can come up with a bit of everything, leading to extremely different effectiveness and a lot of GM adjudication. Actions you can use in combat must be strictly defined, as players can otherwise find ways to abuse them.
I agree with you on this. I see very little advantage in the system having left Aid so loose. PF2e is a tight system with many well-defined rules and players and GMs expect it to be that way, for balance and predictability reasons. By playing Aid as "use this action that doesn't really have anything well-defined to help an ally in combat when you have nothing better to use" with practically everything relativized, suddenly throwing into the game a "here, use this action practically however you think best" ends up creating a lot of confusion in its use. Even hero points, a mechanic that is extremely modified by each GM, is much better defined and causes much less confusion than Aid does.
In my opinion, Aid would have been a much better thing if the designers had set clearer and more direct rules to be followed, instead of leaving everything to be decided by the players and regulated by the GM's guesswork.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to round out, I don't think the developers intended much when they wrote Aid,
And how about when they took a second hard look at it for the Remaster and decided that it wasn't quite working as intended and so lowered the static DC to 15 instead of 20 and didn't change it to reference the Simple DC table or the Level-based DC table?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Define 'rude'. People tell me that a lot - that I am being rude to them.
Bolding can be read as someone raising their voice and insisting. We are at a point in the conversation where I think everyone has understood the rules, it's not as if they were complicated. So bolding text is not necessary. We have all understood that you want to choose what "hard" means, but we disagree.
Explain how that bolded phrase is being used in your position that the GM is allowed by RAW to, for example, use the DC by level table permanently
Aiding to attack a goblin is easier than aiding to attack a dragon. That's just common sense. So there's a real reason to follow a DC progression either through the DC by level table or using the enemy AC - 10 (as I've seen in this discussion).
Explain how that bolded phrase is being used in your position that the GM is allowed by RAW to, for example, decide that MAP applies to the Aid process
Performing an action with a penalty makes the action harder. That's once again common sense.
If I was running the game, I would be open to a player taking a minute to deal with it in the moment:
Player: I Aid. 19.
GM: You fail.
Player: Really? It's normally a flat DC of 15. Are you applying a penalty of some sort?
IMO even dealing in this way is insufficient. The right IMO is:
Player: I AidGM: How?
Player: Hum... I will Aid doing X
GM: This is a difficult way to Aid your ally in this situation the DC will be increased to 20 due this. Do you wish to continue?
I know there are some people that dislike that we point numbers because this looks like a metagame but players already have numbers in their mind when they choose to do the things. They build their characters around the avg numbers and probabilities. Simply just hide a difficult will just frustrate the players because they won't have no notion of how the things that they will try to do can work.
The minimum expected is to tip like "you notice that if you try to help in this way will be harder to work" (I still prefer to say the number as a way to better inform the chances) instead to force the players to act blind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The preparation for an ally's attack could be taking swings at the enemy yourself, the reaction is when you make your well timed attack giving your ally a better chance at getting through.
I react, a bit late, at that statement because I think it points out a real issue with Aid.
Aid is a reaction with a preparation phase. But it actually doesn't really make sense. If you are aiding a surgeon during an hour, the preparation is... actually the Aid itself and the Aid reaction represents nothing.
Even in the lockpick example given in the rules, the preparation is the Aid itself and the reaction is meaningless.
And when you Aid an attack, what is supposed to be the preparation? You think: I gonna Aid this attack! How is that supposed to even take an action.
So I think Aid is misleading, which is why there are so many disagreements. If, when aiding your ally attack a foe, you visualize a single action that you perform exactly when your ally attack, then the preparation is meaningless. But if you visualize a process where you badger the opponent for your ally to find the good moment to Strike, then the reaction is meaningless.
I feel that this concept of action + reaction is a balance one. But it's misleading as it isn't clear. In my opinion, they should have removed the reaction as it makes the less sense to me.
At Superbidi and Finoan, I don't think your argument is productive. There are often miscommunications in text format because we lose of a lot of context from the lack of someone's voice.
Personally I often bold text to provide/demonstrate emphasis on a point. I wouldn't generally read it as being rude, but it's not impossible or unreasonable to do that, due to the lack of tone and context to an extent, it could be interpreted that way.
If Finoan had intended to be insulting by the bolding and implying people couldn't read, that would be rude.
But I doubt that was Finoan's intention.
And maybe not relevant to my overall point, "rude" can be anything that breaks social norms in interpersonal interactions so quite a lot can actually be rude and can vary between people due to what different people will consider "normal". Finoan, you're not entirely wrong that it is someone say "I don't like what you're saying/doing" but you're being overly reductionist in jumping to the conclusion by dismissing SuperBidi's feelings and saying they have no argument otherwise.
It is quite possible to be offended and to call that out and sidelining other arguments (though this does nothing to resolve the issue, it is a very common human response to a perceived insult).
Anyways, I would encourage you both to drop that part of your discussion and apologize for perceived or intended insults and move onto more productive discussions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
-The Typical DC is 15, But its by no means a base dc nor is it a suggestion to use the difficulty adjustments.
-Aid only needs you to be in a place where it makes narrative sense for your capabilities to aid.
The word Typical basically implies that is a default suggestion. If wasn't a suggesting the designers would write something like "use the normal DC for this level" to allow that Aid to follow the default level difficult. When they set a fixed DC as typical they are suggesting that the DC doesn't auto-increases but you can turn it harder or easier to a lvl 1 character without the intention to auto-increase it as level up.
Or just would say "choose an DC to set a difficult to this task based in general guidelines". If they have put a DC there the last thing that I think is that to ignore it and choose another arbitrarily. I may can houserule that latter if I notice that this is crating a problem but not just ignore at first glance something that a designer way more experienced than myself made. Every time that I gone against the designers is this system I have regret in the end. Now I follow the rules only extending them but not goes against them.
The preparation for an ally's attack could be taking swings at the enemy yourself, the reaction is when you make your well timed attack giving your ally a better chance at getting through.I react, a bit late, at that statement because I think it points out a real issue with Aid.
Aid is a reaction with a preparation phase. But it actually doesn't really make sense. If you are aiding a surgeon during an hour, the preparation is... actually the Aid itself and the Aid reaction represents nothing.
Even in the lockpick example given in the rules, the preparation is the Aid itself and the reaction is meaningless.
And when you Aid an attack, what is supposed to be the preparation? You think: I gonna Aid this attack! How is that supposed to even take an action.
So I think Aid is misleading, which is why there are so many disagreements. If, when aiding your ally attack a foe, you visualize a single action that you perform exactly when your ally attack, then the preparation is meaningless. But if you visualize a process where you badger the opponent for your ally to find the good moment to Strike, then the reaction is meaningless.
I feel that this concept of action + reaction is a balance one. But it's misleading as it isn't clear. In my opinion, they should have removed the reaction as it makes the less sense to me.
IMO the real reason that Aid was written as a reaction was to say that you are action together with an ally and not to really represent a real reaction.
During exploration where the action cost not really matter is how Aid really works, you are actively aiding an ally while this ally acts. But during encounters the way that designers found to replicate this was to use preparation actions + reaction as a way to say that in practice you are acting in sync with an ally.
This preparation action IMO is part of the Aid itself. It is something that you are doing despite you are acting before the allied turn arrives. It's a way to workaround the fact that in a turn based game is almost impossible to make all actions happens at same time.
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been watching this argument for a bit now, and I just came to say, thank you for keeping things more or less civil! Please note that we cannot assume intention when someone puts something in bold as there are a lot of reasons one might do that!
The insults have been reigned in so far, so please be careful of this as things are bordering on conflicting with our guidelines. If you have to agree to disagree, that's ok! Sometimes that's the best way to end things and move on. But, please do so without assuming intention and thus exchanging insults. Thank you all!
Finoan I wanted to clarify something from earlier about the bolded section.
You pointed out not being able to remove the bolded section of the rules.
My interpretation of RAW was inclusive of the section you bolded not excluding it. In fact I am relying very much on that bolded section to come to my conclusion that a GM can adjust the DC and must decide when an action is particularly hard.
An I have not taken the position that you wouldn't be entitled to disagree with the GM that makes that call where a pc has MAP. But both you and the GM doing so are following the rules.
And to be clear this is what I see the rules asking of a GM for adjudicating aid.
1 - Decide if the player explanation is valid for aiding
If no - tell the player that.
If Yes -
2 - Decide if the PC needs to use a skill check or an attack roll for the reaction.
3 - Decide if DC 15 is appropriate or if it should be higher or lower based on all the relevant aspects of the attempt. Tell the player if the attempt would be easier or harder.
4 - Add any traits that are relevant to the preparation and or the reaction
If a GM is doing the above then I would say they are following the rules. IMO A GM doesn't have to agree aiding an attack while having MAP is typical. They can say that is harder and still follow the rules.
The point I am making is that 3 above set to 15 or lower or higher is all within the rules. You can disagree with a GM when they say an action is harder than normal and set the DC higher and are entitled to do so, but saying its houseruling is not appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The action is "you are fencing with an enemy and waiting for the perfect moment to strike so that they wouldn't be able to avoid ally's strike". Or "you are observing an enemy and waiting for the perfect moment to strike so that they wouldn't be able to avoid ally's strike". And the reaction is that striking/feinting attempt which results in a check. For example. You could make your own description.
Or "Their shield gets stuck with your weapon and you keep it that way while your ally attacks the enemy" or "you grab the dragon leg for a couple of seconds while your ally attacks". There can be 2 ways of describing it, either focusing on the reaction or on the preparation.
I actually love these sentences: "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."
The first one speaks about the preparation duration and the second one, which is supposed to help determine the duration of the preparation, completely replaces the word preparation by help: "The character has to help until the task is finished" when we are speaking of the preparation duration...
And when you Aid an attack, what is supposed to be the preparation? You think: I gonna Aid this attack! How is that supposed to even take an action.
Monica the Monk decides to Aid, with a shoulder-check to the BBEG, Barbara the Barbarian's Strike at the end of a Sudden Charge.
GM: What are you doing as a prep action?
Monica the Monk: "Oh! I pause to wait for the right moment to check the BBEG."
Locpicking: "I take out my own picks and get in position..."
Surgery: "I scan the instruments, noting their layout, to more efficiently pick the right one when asked."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My interpretation of RAW was inclusive of the section you bolded not excluding it. In fact I am relying very much on that bolded section to come to my conclusion that a GM can adjust the DC and must decide when an action is particularly hard.
The issue arises when the GM rarely or never uses the typical 15 DC and defends that as RAW.
If the DC is typically 15, then, more often then not, it should be 15. Combined with the typical DC and the reasons (particular hard or easy tasks), the call-out that the "GM might adjust the DC" is expressing a deviation from the standard that should not be standard.
I believe some are reading "might" as "may" as in "the GM has permission to." However, the construction of the sentence suggests the reading of "might" should more translate to "it is possible that the GM would, in certain cases."
Thus, when the GM decides that the DC 15 check is too easy or permissive and always replaces it they are, in fact, deviating into house rules territory. It's fine if they do, just don't argue that it isn't house rules territory.
My interpretation of RAW was inclusive of the section you bolded not excluding it. In fact I am relying very much on that bolded section to come to my conclusion that a GM can adjust the DC and must decide when an action is particularly hard.The issue arises when the GM rarely or never uses the typical 15 DC and defends that as RAW.
If the DC is typically 15, then, more often then not, it should be 15. Combined with the typical DC and the reasons (particular hard or easy tasks), the call-out that the "GM might adjust the DC" is expressing a deviation from the standard that should not be standard.
I believe some are reading "might" as "may" as in "the GM has permission to." However, the construction of the sentence suggests the reading of "might" should more translate to "it is possible that the GM would, in certain cases."
Thus, when the GM decides that the DC 15 check is too easy or permissive and always replaces it they are, in fact, deviating into house rules territory. It's fine if they do, just don't argue that it isn't house rules territory.
Two points.
First -
We are disagreeing on the cases that warrant adjustment. Thats fine.
But its not a disagreement on playing rules as written because the rules themselves say and hopefully we agree a GM can and should make adjustments when warranted.
Second -
The idea of more often than not the DC should be 15 is sort of a odd statement for the discussion. I dont mean that in a negative way but here is what I mean. If all the persons here agreed on a particular circumstance as one that is particularly hard and we all said yes thats a good reason to increase the DC wouldnt it be a good thing to always be consistent in that application? Meaning everytime that circumstance happened the GM increased the DC accordingly? Otherwise they would be playing favorites when they didnt.
I have not been saying that the DC should be adjusted when there is no special circumstance, MAP is the special circumstance.
And that is a point where two GMs can disagree but neither are houseruling. Both sides of the disagreement are within the rules.
the rules themselves say and hopefully we agree a GM can and should make adjustments when warranted.People are saying (and I agree) that making this DC level-based (AC-based included) or simple DC is NOT an 'adjustment'. It's a complete replacement. That's the root of the disagreement.
For the other discussion happening yes.
Yes, but I was focused on that you can describe both action+reaction if you really want to. And as this is the existing mechanics and it isn't really jarring we can do just that and happily continue playing.
Sorry, I didn't understand you were describing the preparation, as "fencing" and "observing" is just what you do while fighting. Hence my answer.
Thus, when the GM decides that the DC 15 check is too easy or permissive and always replaces it they are, in fact, deviating into house rules territory.
When I speak of applying MAP, the only checks I'm modifying are "Aid checks with Attack Rolls while having MAP". So a limited number of checks. Most Aid checks, from my experience, happen outside combat and GMs don't care about modifying the base difficulty in this case.
So none of us is doing anything outside RAW.
Player: I Aid. 19.
GM: You fail.
Player: Really? It's normally a flat DC of 15. Are you applying a penalty of some sort?IMO even dealing in this way is insufficient. The right IMO is:
Player: I Aid
GM: How?
Player: Hum... I will Aid doing X
GM: This is a difficult way to Aid your ally in this situation the DC will be increased to 20 due this. Do you wish to continue?
Better, sure, but that's the GM's half of the conversation you're improving, which is outside of the control of the player who started the thread.
When I speak of applying MAP, the only checks I'm modifying are "Aid checks with Attack Rolls while having MAP".
Zero Aid checks with Attack Rolls have MAP.
All Aid checks, whether they are Attack Rolls or not, are made when it is not your turn and so by RAW do not have MAP apply. I already quoted the rule for Multiple Attack Penalty that explicitly says that.
I seriously don't understand why that is a difficult rule to read.
Zero Aid checks with Attack Rolls have MAP.
All Aid checks, whether they are Attack Rolls or not, are made when it is not your turn and so by RAW do not have MAP apply. I already quoted the rule for Multiple Attack Penalty that explicitly says that.
I seriously don't understand why that is a difficult rule to read.
And I also explained you why it is flat out wrong. We will run in circle again ;)
You pointed out not being able to remove the bolded section of the rules.
My interpretation of RAW was inclusive of the section you bolded not excluding it. In fact I am relying very much on that bolded section to come to my conclusion that a GM can adjust the DC and must decide when an action is particularly hard.3 - Decide if DC 15 is appropriate or if it should be higher or lower based on all the relevant aspects of the attempt. Tell the player if the attempt would be easier or harder.
Have you ever heard the saying, "when everything is the highest priority, then nothing is"?
It is a similar concept here. If everything is an exception to what is typical, then nothing is. If every use of Aid is particularly hard, then particularly hard is typical.
I believe some are reading "might" as "may" as in "the GM has permission to." However, the construction of the sentence suggests the reading of "might" should more translate to "it is possible that the GM would, in certain cases."
For me it is the difference between 'typical' and 'particular'.
It comes to the same result though. If every use case of Aid is being given an adjustment - especially one due solely to the level of play that the campaign is at - then that is not an adjustment for a particular. That is a change to the typical.
Aiding to attack a goblin is easier than aiding to attack a dragon. That's just common sense. So there's a real reason to follow a DC progression either through the DC by level table or using the enemy AC - 10 (as I've seen in this discussion).
That is still not what the rules state to do. Common sense or not, that is still a houserule.
The rule does not state using a DC progression in the typical case.
It doesn't even state using a DC progression in a particular case. A particular case should be using a DC adjustment. It even uses the word 'adjust'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I also explained you why it is flat out wrong. We will run in circle again ;)
I do not see where you have.
I see where you have given an opinion. A justification for your houserules.
But I see nowhere that you have given any rule support for applying MAP. Where in the rules does it say that MAP should apply to the Aid reaction?
Not an opinion. Not a balance argument. Not an 'appeal to reality' fallacy .
Rules. And sound logical conclusions drawn from those rule statements.
But I see nowhere that you have given any rule support for applying MAP. Where in the rules does it say that MAP should apply to the Aid reaction?
MAP applies to the preparation action, not the Aid reaction.
But I see nowhere that you have given any rule support for applying MAP. Where in the rules does it say that MAP should apply to the Aid reaction?MAP applies to the preparation action, not the Aid reaction.
That is still irrelevant. The Aid check is not being made during the Aid preparation action. There is no roll being made to apply MAP to.
Even if you show that you apply MAP to the Aid preparation action, that is not a rules reason to apply MAP to the Aid reaction also.
So the question still stands. What rules reason is there to apply MAP to the Aid reaction?
That is still irrelevant. The Aid check is not being made during the Aid preparation action. There is no roll being made to apply MAP to.
Even if you show that you apply MAP to the Aid preparation action, that is not a rules reason to apply MAP to the Aid reaction also.
Let's take 2 examples:
- You are helping a surgeon during one hour. During the whole hour you are subject to a penalty (like Stupefied) and it gets out at the very last moment for the Aid reaction.- You are helping a surgeon during one hour. At the very end of the hour, you are subject to a penalty (like Stupefied) and it applies to the Aid reaction.
In which of these 2 cases will you apply the penalty?
Only need to scroll up to see the responses that clearly answer each of the last few posts.
Clearly MAP is not every situation. Any player can always get the typical DC of 15 by just taking the aid action first before using other abilities with the attack trait as long as there are no other circumstances making the check harder or easier.
As a reminder of what I said before, the players roll during the reaction is not taking an MAP penalty so bringing up the reaction rule is not an argument against.
Let's take 2 examples:
- You are helping a surgeon during one hour. During the whole hour you are subject to a penalty (like Stupefied) and it gets out at the very last moment for the Aid reaction.
- You are helping a surgeon during one hour. At the very end of the hour, you are subject to a penalty (like Stupefied) and it applies to the Aid reaction.In which of these 2 cases will you apply the penalty?
This is invalid comparison.
One, that isn't how Aid works during Exploration. While the roll is only done once, the check is representing the entire duration of giving assistance. Also, if the GM is assigning a penalty it would be a penalty to the roll, not an increase in DC for a particularly hard usage of Aid.
In any case, how Aid works in Exploration mode does not change the rule about penalties not applying in Encounter mode when it is not your turn.
One, that isn't how Aid works during Exploration.
I think I spot a houserule...
So, how does it work during Exploration?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a reminder of what I said before, the players roll during the reaction is not taking an MAP penalty so bringing up the reaction rule is not an argument against.
Meaning this here:
Its kind of simple in that one GM might say its not any harder to use aid after striking and another GM saying you know what striking over and over is harder so aid when using it in a way they think should have the attack trait also is harder.
Yes?
So you are taking one possible potential narrative description and applying it as a general rule to Aid. "If the player describes their preparation for Aid as being 'attacking the enemy repeatedly during that action of my turn in order to distract the enemy', then MAP applies to that preparation action as an increase in the Aid DC for the reaction."
So how about if the player instead decides to describe their preparation action differently? Describe it as 'planning an attack to coincide with my ally's attack so that my attack will distract the enemy'.
So why are you increasing the DC for a player because of their choice of narrative description? Especially if you don't warn them about it.
One, that isn't how Aid works during Exploration.I think I spot a houserule...
So, how does it work during Exploration?
By using Improvise an Activity. Unless you have some other way of running it by RAW. The action is only defined properly in Encounter mode.
But that is still irrelevant to the discussion of Aid in combat anyway. Point 2 still stands. How Aid works in Exploration mode does not change the rule about penalties not applying in Encounter mode when it is not your turn.
By using Improvise an Activity. Unless you have some other way of running it by RAW. The action is only defined properly in Encounter mode.
But that is still irrelevant to the discussion of Aid in combat anyway. Point 2 still stands. How Aid works in Exploration mode does not change the rule about penalties not applying in Encounter mode when it is not your turn.
I showed you a clear example of why a penalty during the preparation phase could carry on to the final check. And you're desperately making up things to dismiss it. If that's your point then I think we will stop this conversation now as, from my point of view, you bring strict RAW when it's on your side and you dismiss it when it's against you.
I showed you a clear example of why a penalty during the preparation phase could carry on to the final check.
I asked for rules quotes and logic. You are giving examples and opinion justifications.
I also clearly explained why your example is inaccurate. Your example is in Exploration mode, not in Encounter mode.
The only thing I am desperately trying to do is determine if I need to summon a Rules Aeon to describe a flaw in the rules text.
So far, I haven't found a reason to do so.
By using Improvise an Activity. Unless you have some other way of running it by RAW. The action is only defined properly in Encounter mode.
But that is still irrelevant to the discussion of Aid in combat anyway. Point 2 still stands. How Aid works in Exploration mode does not change the rule about penalties not applying in Encounter mode when it is not your turn.
You can just use encounter actions in exploration mode unless something explicitly bars it (e.g., the stance trait).
Improvising an action would make sense for abstracting repeated aid checks (like aiding someone rolling one secret check for 10 minutes of searching), in the way the game already abstracts a lot of repeated checks into one long action in exploration mode. But Aid is already usable during exploration as-is.
For aiding longer activities like search, personally, I'd just treat them as needing to spend as long "preparing" as the other person is taking to search.
Ok, has anyone actually seen high level aid actually break anything? Like at worst, the penalty for repeat aiding should fix most issues that could theoretically pop up. It really feels like people are trying to solve a problem that does not exist.
I think the problem isn't if it breaks something or not. (It's situationally strong, sure, but the action cost is steep enough to keep it from being an issue most of the time.) The problem is instead that everyone seemingly has different ideas of how to run a mechanic that can give you + to hit, which is probably not something that should happen in PF2E. And in general, I think everyone likes it better when people are on the same page. That's really what's happening at this point; people want to get other people on the same page that they're on, so they're discussing how to run a terminally vague action.
As a reminder of what I said before, the players roll during the reaction is not taking an MAP penalty so bringing up the reaction rule is not an argument against.Meaning this here:
Its kind of simple in that one GM might say its not any harder to use aid after striking and another GM saying you know what striking over and over is harder so aid when using it in a way they think should have the attack trait also is harder.Yes?
So you are taking one possible potential narrative description and applying it as a general rule to Aid. "If the player describes their preparation for Aid as being 'attacking the enemy repeatedly during that action of my turn in order to distract the enemy', then MAP applies to that preparation action as an increase in the Aid DC for the reaction."
So how about if the player instead decides to describe their preparation action differently? Describe it as 'planning an attack to coincide with my ally's attack so that my attack will distract the enemy'.
So why are you increasing the DC for a player because of their choice of narrative description? Especially if you don't warn them about it.
You have a few things to respond to.
Your final question strawmaned me assuming I don't warn the player. I always tell the player if their idea can be used to aid first, If I allow it I will also tell them if it is typical, harder, or easier so they can decide if they want to attempt it. I laid that out here
Finoan I wanted to clarify something from earlier about the bolded section.You pointed out not being able to remove the bolded section of the rules.
My interpretation of RAW was inclusive of the section you bolded not excluding it. In fact I am relying very much on that bolded section to come to my conclusion that a GM can adjust the DC and must decide when an action is particularly hard.An I have not taken the position that you wouldn't be entitled to disagree with the GM that makes that call where a pc has MAP. But both you and the GM doing so are following the rules.
And to be clear this is what I see the rules asking of a GM for adjudicating aid.
1 - Decide if the player explanation is valid for aiding
If no - tell the player that.
If Yes -
2 - Decide if the PC needs to use a skill check or an attack roll for the reaction.
3 - Decide if DC 15 is appropriate or if it should be higher or lower based on all the relevant aspects of the attempt. Tell the player if the attempt would be easier or harder.
4 - Add any traits that are relevant to the preparation and or the reactionIf a GM is doing the above then I would say they are following the rules. IMO A GM doesn't have to agree aiding an attack while having MAP is typical. They can say that is harder and still follow the rules.
The point I am making is that 3 above set to 15 or lower or higher is all within the rules. You can disagree with a GM when they say an action is harder than normal and set the DC higher and are entitled to do so, but saying its houseruling is not appropriate.
For the second question.
The GM first must tell the player if the description they provided is allowed as an aid action. I wont just allow anything, it has to be specific to what the ally is doing. Planning is not helping and I wouldn't allow it to be the preparation action. The preparation should be helping just like the example of holding the lockpick steady as the preparation in the example provided is already helping. The qualifying aid description has the player getting involved, the disqualified example has the player standing back and encouraging. Planning then is no different than encouraging as a preparation action and could have been done from any distance.
For the question you asked first I was actually meaning this one here. I know lol, we have both said a lot in this thread already.
Second -
The idea of more often than not the DC should be 15 is sort of a odd statement for the discussion. I dont mean that in a negative way but here is what I mean. If all the persons here agreed on a particular circumstance as one that is particularly hard and we all said yes thats a good reason to increase the DC wouldnt it be a good thing to always be consistent in that application? Meaning everytime that circumstance happened the GM increased the DC accordingly? Otherwise they would be playing favorites when they didnt.
I have not been saying that the DC should be adjusted when there is no special circumstance, MAP is the special circumstance.
And that is a point where two GMs can disagree but neither are houseruling. Both sides of the disagreement are within the rules.
To kind of wrap this up what it sounds like you are actually saying is that MAP isn't a good enough justification for increasing the DC. Its fine to claim that but it would be just as much a houserule as claiming it is. Claiming it ends at your table and is within rules either way.
The rules don't cover how to specifically adjudicate particularly hard from typical or easy. in fact they don't provide any examples of situations that are particularly hard.In that respect it does actually fall under houserule territory in that anytime time a GM has to fill in where there is nothing specified it is a houserule. And if were in that territory anything at all decided as hard or easy is a houserule.
And I would disagree with even that framing as the rule in fact for aid is that a GM decide what is hard or easy and adjust the DC accordingly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to point out the developer-suggested solution to that is 'increase the DC each time Aid is used against the same creature' (if we base on Recall Knowledge, +5 each time) not 'increase the base DC'
Which is basically saying "This is made for the GM to decide how it works, if you're just shooting from the hip, DC 20".
And that's fine if you're players don't use Aid often.
If it becomes a common tactic, you might want to sharpen your pencil.
I'm going to be honest, and say as a GM I'm just going to run Aid the way I want to get the results I want, so I'm going to modify it how I see fit.
So you can try to argue about what is and isn't right or base DC or not...but I'm going to ignore everyone (not just you) and do what I want.
I'm going to point out the developer-suggested solution to that is 'increase the DC each time Aid is used against the same creature' (if we base on Recall Knowledge, +5 each time) not 'increase the base DC'I'm going to be honest, and say as a GM I'm just going to run Aid the way I want to get the results I want, so I'm going to modify it how I see fit.
So you can try to argue about what is and isn't right or base DC or not...but I'm going to ignore everyone (not just you) and do what I want.
Just out of curiosity, and what do you want?
(And does it go close to what players want?)
What I want is for it to be a useful tool in some occasions, but not a constant tactic and not one where critical success becomes commonplace.
So in my games, the DC will not be some static DC 15. As players level up (and assuming they are doing on level tasks) the DC to Aid will go up as well.
Is that what players want? Probably not, because if they have in their mind that it's a DC 15 and they want to crit succeed at higher levels all the time they're likely to be disappointed.
If instead they have in their mind they want to occasionally be able to help out an ally by adding a +1 or +2 to their check then I'm on board with that.
And I do want players to pretty regularly succeed at Aid checks, else they'll never even try. But I don't want critical success to be common against on level (or higher level) tasks.
Behind the screen, there's a high chance that I will just tell players they succeed but not critically succeed on most Aid attempts regardless of the roll (unless it's a nat 20), because that's what I want to happen. I want players to benefit from the investment of spending an action preparing and a reaction, but I don't want that to become too good of a benefit.
To kind of wrap this up what it sounds like you are actually saying is that MAP isn't a good enough justification for increasing the DC. Its fine to claim that but it would be just as much a houserule as claiming it is.
That is an incomplete representation of what I am saying.
Yes, I am saying that MAP isn't a good enough justification for increasing the DC.
But I am also pointing to written rules to say that. MAP says that it does not apply to checks made when it is not your turn. Aid says that the typical DC is 15 and adjustments can be made for particular cases. Both of those are written.
The logic that I am using is that making a permanent change to every instance of Aid based solely on game mechanics - such as increasing the DC every time the player makes the preparation action while having MAP - is a change to the typical DC, not an adjustment because of a particular usage of Aid.
So if one side of a debate has rules as well as reasoning and the other side only has reasoning, which is RAW?
I understand your reasoning that if the description of the Aid preparation involves making attacks, then the preparation action can have the Attack trait added. There is a rule for that.
The part that is a disagreement of opinion is whether MAP is a particular circumstance that can be used to justify increasing the DC of Aid. I don't think it is because the Aid process is defined as having assisting with attack rolls by using an attack roll as a typical scenario. If it was intended that MAP should apply, then Aid would have an override statement in it like Ready does.
The part that I don't understand is why the players wouldn't just stop describing their Aid preparation actions as involving an actual attack. That would avoid having the Attack trait applied. I don't see where you answered that question in the post:
So how about if the player instead decides to describe their preparation action differently? Describe it as 'planning an attack to coincide with my ally's attack so that my attack will distract the enemy'.
If you are still going to put the Attack trait on the Preparation action and increase the DC without any narrative justification for doing so, how do you still claim to be following the rule "The GM can add any relevant traits to your preparatory action or to your Aid reaction depending on the situation,"
If instead you are always adding the Attack trait to the Preparation action and increasing the DC every time the Aid reaction involves an attack roll no matter what the narrative is, then that is once again a change to the rules for typical uses of Aid, not an adjustment for a particular case.
You can just use encounter actions in exploration mode unless something explicitly bars it (e.g., the stance trait).
Improvising an action would make sense for abstracting repeated aid checks (like aiding someone rolling one secret check for 10 minutes of searching), in the way the game already abstracts a lot of repeated checks into one long action in exploration mode. But Aid is already usable during exploration as-is.
For aiding longer activities like search, personally, I'd just treat them as needing to spend as long "preparing" as the other person is taking to search.
The example in question was using Aid for an hour. Actively by doing things to assist during the entire time. Not just gathering equipment (preparing), but actually handing the right equipment over at the right time.
Yes, there are multiple ways of running Aid in exploration mode.
It is still a red herring regarding how to run Aid when assisting with attack rolls and whether MAP applies. MAP is an incredibly short duration penalty. It doesn't even last for an entire round. It only lasts for your turn of a round. During other character's turns of that same round, MAP does not apply.
Also, it is a penalty, not a DC increase. No one changes the DC of Fireball because the caster had MAP penalty at the time that they cast it, or changes the DC of Scare to Death because the character had MAP penalty when they use it.