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.
Yeah, it's called Aid: 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.
Bolded ;)
Replace "performing surgery" by "doing research" if you really want to stick to RAW to the closest.
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?
You are absolutely wrong there again saying I am not quoting the rules as written.
I am saying exactly that pg 416 Player Core and pg 27 GM Core are making my case.
You try to help your ally with a task. To use this reaction,
you must first prepare to help, usually by using an action
during your turn. You must explain to the GM exactly how
you’re trying to help, and they determine whether you can
Aid your ally.
When you use your Aid reaction, attempt a skill check
or attack roll of a type decided by the GM. The typical DC
is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard
or easy tasks. The GM can add any relevant traits to your
preparatory action or to your Aid reaction depending on the
situation, or even allow you to Aid checks other than skill
checks and attack rolls.
The typical DC
is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hardor easy tasks. means exactly what it says. To say, but the GM cant do so while the PC aiding has MAP for aiding attack rolls is adding rules. You are creating stipulations where the GM can't make the call about whats hard and increase the DC instead of just following exactly what it says.
and like I said you can disagree with another GM about what is particularly hard but you cant say they are not following the rules as written. The rule as I quoted it has no stipulation saying that MAP is a circumstance that is not particularly hard when you give the attack trait to 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 am not adding text to the rules to make my argument, I am just doing what it says to do and determining when to adjust the DC for harder or easier. I would say that you have to add text to the existing rules make your claim RAW. You would have to stipulate a GM cannot decide what is harder under X circumstances or add rules that say what is harder.
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,"
Again you assert I have no narrative justification. MAP is a mechanic yes, but I am the GM, in my game I am responsible for narrative. When players have MAP they are doing something harder both mechanically and in narrative. That is not your call at any table but yours. It is always the GMs call at their table. If you at your table dont want MAP to have any narrative impact thats great, I will include it in narrative at my table. You made no rules argument here at all by the way and are telling me I am not making rules arguments.
The important thing is consistency, fairness, and creating a good time for your table.
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.
Thats another thing. Always adding the attack trait to attack roll based aid is not the same as say always adding the attack trait to any and all aid checks.
Deciding that when there is MAP the check is harder is not the same as deciding the check is always harder or even always harder when the attack trait is applied.Its a specific circumstance, more specific than aid in general and more specific still than aiding with the attack trait applied. Its aiding with the attack trait and MAP during preparation. That is not a circumstance delineated in the rules as written and a GM is always making a decision on difficulty whether they are saying its typical or saying its harder. Neither GM is outside the rules as I have said before.
This is for clarity on the two points I didn't address in the last post.
I want to saw too, I used the word "you" a lot in the last post and here and that can come off as aggressive, so I apologize if I have come off that way.
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.
You are pointing to reaction rules. But I made the difference clear. Adjusting a DC is not applying a penalty or granting a bonus, not the multiple attack penalty or a circumstance penalty or a status penalty or even an untyped penalty. its not a penalty in game terms and so the rules on reactions and MAP are not involved at all.
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.
I did discuss the idea of permanence. And in my last post I even pointed out how special a circumstance this is for Aid. Its not every aid check, its not even every aid check that is an attack roll.
My argument before that was on consistency. If a GM determined something is particularly hard they absolutely to be fair to all players should be consistent in applying what is particularly hard. You wouldn't want a GM to say this time having MAP was hard but for the NPC or another player its not hard. The idea of permanence is strange to claim.If you Finoan decided something was particularly hard and that same thing came up again for another player and that second time you say oh its not hard, thats just not being consistent. A GM should be consistent and every time the harder thing happens adjust the DC accordingly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t see why there is this much effort being put into trying to neuter the aid action.
*Looks down from on high*
What's this? A fight? LOL. We sure got some stubborn ones in this community!
In general, "adjusting the DC" is intended to be done via the DC adjustments table. MAP is not adjusting the DC. It is adjusting the check.
Aid does technically give the GM discretion to add the attack trait to the reaction or the preparation action. However, there is not a single reaction with the attack trait in the entire game, at least according to Nethys. Reactive Strike does not have the attack trait. Retributive Strike doesn't have the attack trait. And so on. And this makes sense: the entirety of the rules for the attack trait are "this takes MAP when used on your turn."
An ability with this trait involves an attack. For each attack you make beyond the first on your turn, you take a multiple attack penalty.
Emphasis on the "your turn"—the attack trait isn't on reactions because the rules text for the attack trait just has no bearing outside of your turn anyways.
===
While I acknowledge that the ready>do readied action and prepare to aid>aid structures have superficial similarities, I think the differences are much stronger.
Here's the two ways I see ready:
1) it effectively lets you spend 2A to perform any 1A ability as a reaction
2) you spend an action and a reaction to delay 1A from your turn to outside of your turn.
Personally, I think both expose different, logical reasons why readied actions take MAP.
1) shows that Ready is very open-ended, and prone to abuse without limitations. Giving MAP to readied actions prevents what would otherwise be known abuse cases like Monk Flurry>readied flurry, and avoids future unknown abuse cases. It also keeps Readying a second, guaranteed MAP-0 attack from outshining reactive strike, retributive strikes, and similar reaction abilities in specific situations, and keeps classes that don't have such abilities from cheating their way to a less conditional version of them via Ready. (There are absolutely cases where a second, guaranteed -0 attack is a better way to spend 2A+1R than a -5 attack, a skill action, and a reaction attack your class might not even have.) It's a safety valve, basically.
2) shows that ready effectively delays part of your turn without actually changing your initiative. Since the effect is "taking a part of your turn later," whatever you do should be treated the same as if you did it on your most recent turn.
Contrast this with Aid. Ready is, again, an open-ended action that even now allows for nonsense like using power word stun on an enemy as soon as they enter range and denying them the rest of their turn. Unlike Ready, aid is extremely limited in what it can accomplish—it will never do anything besides grant a circumstance bonus—so it doesn't seem to need the same kinds of restrictions to avoid abuse. You know exactly what aid is capable of doing at any given time.
Aid is vague and largely left to GM adjudication, yes. But that doesn't mean it's open-ended. While the DC, whether or not you can aid at all, and the traits your preparation and reaction have are GM fiat... the mechanical outcome of an aid check is fixed. It can only ever give a circumstance bonus that scales with proficiency. It doesn't need the same kinds of safety valves.
And indeed, you can see how different the safety valves given are. For aid, the safety valve (GM fiat) is intended to stop some guy from doing stuff like being annoying and trying to weasel their way into aiding everything with their maxed intimidate. That's why the player doesn't even get to suggest a check. It's designed to stop a particular kind of repetitive play—I aid this turn and every turn until eternity? No you don't, you're taking penalties. Aid is designed to prevent a specific kind of social nuisance by loading power onto the DM, while Ready is designed to prevent mechanical nuisances by stripping power directly from options with the attack trait and limiting you to 1A. An "abusive" attempt to aid isn't going to provide more than +2 or +3 for most of the game at a fairly steep action cost; meanwhile, abusive uses of ready can already get more powerful than that by inflicting showstopper effects on creatures in the middle of their turns. (Readied bottled night, if allowed in your game, can be extremely toxic from an early level.) I don't see the two as remotely similar.
===
In the end, all applying MAP to aid is doing is saying, "I don't think spending 1A+1R should buy you as good a chance of getting crit success on Aid if you've attacked, shoved, or whatever else this turn." And I'm not really sure that, from a balance perspective, that actually makes much sense. Heck, you're basically saying that aiding at MAP-10 should be a success downgrade for a good chunk of the game. I'm not sure I buy that aid is so significant a powerhouse that it needs that restriction.
If anything, this is just a bizarre difficulty increase tucked in a corner. Putting MAP on aid does nothing but make the game harder when you probably want a bonus to hit the most (and you probably want it pretty bad if you're aiding in combat). It doesn't do anything to out of combat aid, either. It just says that you want the game to be harder against enemies with high AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hot take... I think the onus is really on the character describing their action to justify it. (QUOTH: "You must explain to the GM exactly how you’re trying to help, and they determine whether you can Aid your ally.") Normally an Aid action in combat for my table has to involve the player interacting with the scene or environment since there are already rules for distracting, feinting, and almost every other standard tactical combat stuff. If all you've go is some kind of standard tactic, it's already factored into the AC of the enemy and your normal attack bonus (plus off-guard).
Aid is for kicking a nearby chair at the enemy's legs, tipping a table over with a hip-check spraying drinks everywhere, or stomping on the floorboard that got loosened by the critical miss earlier to make the guy trip up a little... Aid is bending over so your friend can Shove them and send them over the banister behind you, knocking over the rickety scarecrow behind the giant's kneecaps, or slamming down on the handle of the frying pan to send fried rice at the enemy... and other exceptional circumstantial situations in a dynamic battle scenario not covered by rules and thus a circumstance bonus. It's narrative candy. A low DC like static 15 is intended to encourage this kind of fun at the table. Even outside of combat, Aid is low hanging fruit for encouraging narrative interaction with the scenario in unexpected ways, not standard rules play. This is for me Aid RAW... the circumstance bonus demands a narrative circumstance and the narrative would determine the final DC.
Someone saying "I aid" and rolling would be given a chance first to describe in more detail ... If the description they came up with was either (a) something not narratively possible or (b) no description at all or (c) a description of some other action already found in the rules (feint, cause a diversion, demoralize, flanking etc.) I'd tell them it doesn't really work that way and give them a do-over. I wouldn't have them lose their action.
So to the OP: Let's play pathfinder, a storytelling game and tell stories together that we will remember forever.
To the MAP appliers: I like where you're coming from in general in thinking through the rule, but I just don't think Aid is for handling standard combat situations... the rules already have actions for that.
To the ones that might tell me I'm playing calvinball: no, this is RAW. "You must explain to the GM exactly how you’re trying to help" followed by the ambiguous DCs tells me this is a narrative lever, not intended for standard situations and I won't let you use it to gain a circumstance bonus unless you're creating a new circumstance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lemuelmassa Im sold on your take for Aid.
I really liked the off the walls examples you gave and would love to see my players try stuff like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like let's expound on it a little...
GM Core says ("Adjudicating Actions") "For rules decisions that are either/or (such as whether a creature can Aid or Take Cover), a PC can usually determine before they take the action whether doing so is viable; if it isn’t viable for some reason, alert them that it won’t work before they spend time, actions, or resources trying. " ... My do-over in case of a bad attempt is how it is supposed to happen RAW.
GM Core continues... "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. " ... Basically, there's lots of situations the GM should actually say that Aid doesn't really change the circumstances in a practical sense so a circumstance bonus can't be earned by that action.
And now an example: The first encounter in the basement of the Beginner Box: A backline player says they "aid" ... I ask for a description and they say, they sling a stone near the rats to distract. I reply with Aid can't do that since it involves trying to make a strike without a feat that would let them do it outside their turn and ask them try something more narrative... is there something in the environment that could help you? They try kicking a pickled fish that has spilled out onto the floor from the broken barrels at the rats coming through the wall opening to distract a rat so as to open it up for an attack from the fighter... that's good:
Preparation action: lines up the field goal
Fighter attacks on their turn, backliner reacts with the kick: DC 15 seems good, probably an athletics check but I'd take a creative sports lore.
Critical success: fish hits rat in head dazing it (not the dazed condition) +2 to hit
Success: fish flies by but rat is interested in the food +1 to hit
Failure: fish is high and wide ... slams limply into the darkness beyond
Critical failure: fish hits fighter in the back of the head -1 to hit
Both critical success and critical failure are super funny so the table gets a laugh and the player gets a hero point.
... This is how Aid works at my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And one last note... This also is how I as the GM use Aid for leftover third actions on my monsters... I too can use Aid by affecting the environment in a manner favorable to my monsters if they have enough Intelligence to create conditions by altering the parameters of the scenario. MUWAHAHAHAHAHA
Rats aren't that smart, but kobolds certainly know how to roll barrels at PCs sticking their snouts where they shouldn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with those who are saying that RAW does not permit the GM to change the DCs on a whim. It allows them to increase the DC if and only if they genuinely believe that a particular use of aid is harder than typical - no other reasons. Of course, as a practical matter they can use that to justify changing it for other reasons if they are prepared to lie but that does not make such changes RAW.
I disagree... before even setting a DC, the GM gets a veto on whether Aid is even possible (INFINITE DC) based on the character's description (QUOTH: "You must explain to the GM exactly how you’re trying to help, and they determine whether you can Aid your ally.") . Aid demands the player to describe exactly what they are doing that changes the situation to the GM to justify a circumstance bonus. The DC will necessarily depend on what they are doing, but often will be something fun narratively so it's okay to set this low or award hero points for creative uses contributing to the fun at the table (see Rule One of Pathfinder). If what they are doing is standard combat tactics such as flanking, creating a diversion, feinting, demoralizing, etc., there are already rules for that, it doesn't change the combat situation, and it's boring. Do-over.
With regard to the OP's problem - one detail that leapt out at me that I don't think anyone else has mentioned: This has mostly been against mindless undead.
That shouldn't matter in the general or typical case. The enemy isn't the target beneficiary of Aid. The ally is.
In a particular case, the GM might represent certain narrative reasons as justification for increasing the Aid DC because of the description of Aid being given and qualities of the enemy such as being Mindless. But the GM should also be able to describe those particulars and should do so when the player is making the proposal for Aid - not after they have already spent the actions and rolled.
before even setting a DC, the GM gets a veto on whether Aid is even possible (INFINITE DC)
That isn't how DC works in Pathfinder2e.
Counterexample: A Trap with an Expert proficiency requirement on the Disable DC. If a character only has Trained proficiency in Thievery, then it is not possible for them to make the attempt successfully. That does not require that the DC change to infinity.
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,"Again you assert I have no narrative justification. MAP is a mechanic yes, but I am the GM, in my game I am responsible for narrative. When players have MAP they are doing something harder both mechanically and in narrative. That is not your call at any table but yours. It is always the GMs call at their table. If you at your table dont want MAP to have any narrative impact thats great, I will include it in narrative at my table. You made no rules argument here at all by the way and are telling me I am not making rules arguments.
Yes, I am asserting that you have no narrative justification for including MAP as an increase in the Aid DC.
And apparently your claim is that you don't need any narrative justification for it, you have GM Fiat instead.
The rule still says 'might adjust for particularly hard'. It does actually say that. Overriding that rule with GM Fiat is a houserule.
I am thinking that the core of this debate is the definitions of 'typical' and 'particular'.
This is how I am defining those terms:
Typical: The standard use cases. This is the expectation for the vast majority of use. Deviations from the typical need to be explained as such.
Particular: One use case that is different from the typical. The differences from the typical cases can and should be explained. The differences are specific to this use case and all use cases that have the same circumstances, but are not general to all use cases or all use cases in a general category.
Using Aid with an Attack Roll is a typical use.
Using Aid while on the deck of a boat in a storm is a particular use. Every Aid attempt made while on the deck of a boat in a storm would share that particular circumstance. Using Aid while on the deck of a boat while not in a storm would not have that particular circumstance. Using Aid on the ground during a storm would also not have that same particular circumstance.
Using Aid Preparation action while having MAP is a general category of use. It is not a particular circumstance. It should use the Typical DC.
-----
So I am still not convinced.
I am not convinced that regularly using the level-based DC table is following the rules for adjusting Aid DC in particular cases. I am not convinced that applying MAP penalty to the Aid check roll is following the rules for Multiple Attack Penalty. I am not convinced that converting MAP penalty the character has when using the Aid Preparation action into an Aid DC adjustment follows the rules for adding traits or adjusting the DC for particular cases.
I am not convinced that there are any rules additions or errata needed to make this more clear. I am not convinced that this is in any way ambiguous.
If you want to argue it with the players at your table, you can certainly do so.
Though I also highly recommend for anyone reading this, that you actually have that discussion with your players rather than springing the ruling on them unawares like Ravingdork's GM was.
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,"Again you assert I have no narrative justification. MAP is a mechanic yes, but I am the GM, in my game I am responsible for narrative. When players have MAP they are doing something harder both mechanically and in narrative. That is not your call at any table but yours. It is always the GMs call at their table. If you at your table dont want MAP to have any narrative impact thats great, I will include it in narrative at my table. You made no rules argument here at all by the way and are telling me I am not making rules arguments.Yes, I am asserting that you have no narrative justification for including MAP as an increase in the Aid DC.
And apparently your claim is that you don't need any narrative justification for it, you have GM Fiat instead.
The rule still says 'might adjust for particularly hard'. It does actually say that. Overriding that rule with GM Fiat is a houserule.
I am thinking that the core of this debate is the definitions of 'typical' and 'particular'.
This is how I am defining those terms:
Typical: The standard use cases. This is the expectation for the vast majority of use. Deviations from the typical need to be explained as such.
Particular: One use case that is different from the typical. The differences from the typical cases can and should be explained. The differences are specific to this use case and all use cases that have the same circumstances, but are not general to all use cases or all use cases in a general category.
Using Aid with an Attack Roll is a typical use.
Using Aid while on the deck of a boat in a storm is a particular use. Every Aid attempt made while on the deck of a boat in a...
Ok so we have several points of irreconcilable disagreement.
First I can see having MAP while using aid for an attack role when the GM gives the attack trait to aid as Particular not Typical (even with your definitions, I even in a previous post explained how particular MAP is for aid).
And I actually think you've made statements up till now that giving the attack trait to aid is not typical. So you might be more in agreement with me than you realize when a GM is giving the attack trait to aid.
Thank you for providing the stormy boat example as it illustrates the reason I was calling out the permanence argument you made as not an argument against. You would apply the stormy boat situation as more difficult every time it came up. You would be consistent.
If a GM says MAP while using an attack roll is also Particular just as a stormy boat situation is Particular then they should be consistent.
You can say they are not the same thing, thats ok. But another GM is still within rules to say both are Particular situations and more difficult than what is typical and be within the rules.
Second
And apparently your claim is that you don't need any narrative justification for it, you have GM Fiat instead.
Do you get to just decide by fiat what I see as narrative or use to generate narrative? Or even that mechanics cannot ever translate to narrative explanations?
I am saying that I can translate MAP to narrative. I even do so every time I describe the results or outcome of a check to players. Or when I assess the players Aid explanation against the narrative situation in game. MAP certainly can have narrative translation when they hit or miss, with narrative descriptions of high MAP strikes hitting sounding even more amazing given how difficult they are to land. Because they actually in game are more difficult to land.It sounds like you didn't read my last few posts responding to you at all. I'm sure you did, but this last post from you flatly ignores or pretends my arguments were not made or that I made arguments other than what I actually typed. I provided a narrative explanation yet you state your claim as if I didn't.
I have explained why MAP is particularly hard and why its not typical yet you ignored those points just flat out typing as if I didn't. And more to the point you are not an arbiter of what is particularly hard. There is no example in the book to point to for aid so you have no rules standings to be that arbiter here. I guess I was right in the beginning when I suggested maybe all the GMs out there do need to come ask you before they decide an aid roll is particularly hard.
The rule still says 'might adjust for particularly hard'. It does actually say that. Overriding that rule with GM Fiat is a houserule.
This is what I am seeing as the core difference between how we understand this exact same section in the Aid rules along with why I think we cannot see eye to eye on it. I don't agree a GM deciding what is hard vs what is typical is overriding anything, That sentence tells me a GM is responsible to do exactly that decide.
The typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks.
When I read this section I take from it the following. I will put in parens the parts that it seems to me you don't take from it that I do
A typical DC is 15 harder checks can have higher difficulty easier ones can have lower difficulty(Harder, easier, and typical is not defined, so it is entirely a GM responsibility to make a decision when the typical 15 applies to a situation or to adjust it higher or lower)
This passage tells the GM to decide as a rule when to use 15 or adjust it.
It seems to me you want Finoan to decide not the GM running the game. I wasnt trying to convince you to run it this way either, I was trying to point out a GM doing the work of deciding when something is typical harder or easier is not a house rule, it is the Aid rule itself.
Why you cant see what I am seeing - I think you are conflating this sentence with what is typical.
The GM can add any relevant traits to your
preparatory action or to your Aid reaction depending on the
situation, or even allow you to Aid checks other than skill
checks and attack rolls.
Bolding to point out the relevant part of the sentence.
Here they have moved on from discussing DCs or what is typical. They are saying what kind of ally actions aid checks can apply to period. They are not telling us what to apply typical DC of 15 to.So I think that is part of the difference in how we are seeing the same text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
before even setting a DC, the GM gets a veto on whether Aid is even possible (INFINITE DC)That isn't how DC works in Pathfinder2e.
Counterexample: A Trap with an Expert proficiency requirement on the Disable DC. If a character only has Trained proficiency in Thievery, then it is not possible for them to make the attempt successfully. That does not require that the DC change to infinity.
I’m saying that even before setting a DC, it has to be justified narratively. If the player says, I Aid, and rolls a natural 20 on their legendary skill but can’t describe what they are doing to meaningfully change the circumstances, the GM can just say no unless they are convinced that there’s a narrative reason for the circumstance bonus. That’s in the first paragraph of the rule before determining skill checks or DCs.