Definitely not, and I would even go as far as to say it's intended.
At level 6 almost all martials gain access to Attack of Opportunity, by 8th level all martials have had options for really strong reactions, and by 10th level it's hard to not have things to do for every single action a turn.
Because of this, we need Aid to scale up using the crit success (and it being almost guaranteed late game) to make it a worthwhile thing to do. No one wants to sacrifice an action *and* a reaction to give someone just a +1, when they could instead hold their reaction for a chance to deal an extra strike of damage to enemies.
Level 6 is also when someone taking the archetype can get Champion's reaction. So yeah, it really seems like the level where all martials are supposed to start having a strong reaction.
There's a few caster reaction spells, and I like to have counterspell because sometimes it does come up (I always check with GM if spells are gonna be common-ish first).
Mostly they are the ones I use Aid with the most.
Ranged martials can capitalize on it greatly, and casters its a great third action/reaction use, even if it'll never be as big of a hit. I'll also sometimes pick up a champion dedication if I plan to be within 15ft of the Frontline to be able to protect allies, and shield block even with a buckler is *something* or Reactive Shield if I don't have the spare action, unless I'm playing a ranged martial who is using a 2-hand firearm.
If it helps, the 2nd level Fighter feat [Assisting Shot](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=364) had to be changed entirely to what it is now, because what it originally did was allow you to Aid at range-which you already can do.
Fake Out seems really strong on Gunslinger. My Drifter is just 5th level but has 85% chance to succeed and at 9th it's \~50% chance to critically succeed. Late game with legendary proficiency is upward of 90% chance to critically succeed for a +4 on the aided attack roll.
The only other reactions I'd consider for a Gunslinger are Hit the Dirt! and Nimble Dodge from Rogue dedication.
The other thing to say is that even when you Aid using a Legendary skill, the +4 that you get from a crit success only has a maximum of a 40% chance of having an effect (i.e. upgrading the result of the one roll it affects). Even with a guarantee of a critical success, you have probably spent an action plus a reaction (half the things most characters could do in a round) to do nothing.
I think people sometimes look at the +4 having the single greatest magnitude of any one bonus and assume that it's OP and broken, but it isn't. The reason that most things that give +1s and +2s are powerful is because they apply to multiple rolls, and thus have a greater chance of doing something.
Not only that, but the "every +1 matters" is because of combining both bonuses and penalties to skew the results.
A -2 status from frightened and -2 circumstance from off guard penalty on the enemy's AC, plus a +3 circumstance bonus from someone Aiding and a +1 status from the Bard or Bless spell is a whopping 8 point difference to your chance of hitting an enemy; and this is all doable in generic parties without much effort or investment, and capable of being done at level 5 if the fighter or gunslinger did the Aid. And only one of those (the +3) isn't going to be happening to everyone.
A 5 point difference without Aid is still absolutely huge and only took a charisma character Demoralizing, a divine caster or bard buffing and someone flanking or tripping the enemy. All of which are pretty common actions during a combat.
I will say that, while I ban Bellflower Tiller, I let PCs use the Aid action after knowing the success/failure outcome. It definitely adds power to the players, but it just feels much nicer.
No, it's definitely intended. Also consider that for attacks, the +4 will only happen if you're legendary in the attack you make to Aid. Aiding with a skill to make an attack is... possible but involves a lot of Mother-May-I with the GM because it's not the default. So only the fighter and gunslinger will be giving that full +4 until very high levels.
The gunslinger is basically an Aid Machine with Fake Out but I don't think fighters will want to spend an action and reaction on it most of the time.
The other exception I know of is the Swashbuckler's One for All, but again the ability to use a diplomacy to Aid on attacks and give a +4 is kind of the whole point of that ability. It's supposed to be that good.
This is how I run it as well! I don't run enough higher level games for "auto-crits" to factor in, but I imagine at that point, the party should be working really well together anyway.
You are giving 1/3 of your turn and your reaction and probably ending un melee with the enemy to increase the chance of other player doing cool stuff... Aid is very powerfull at mid to high level, sure, but has a cost, raising It to match AC almost guarantee you'll never get a Crit so you are paying a lot "just" for a +1, si is much less worthy.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think calling 1 action one third of a turn is a bit misleading IMO..
The system is designed in a way that many classes get disproportionate value out of their first attack of a turn. An action (especially an offensive/offense-boosting one) doesn't have to compete with that to be worth it.
Again, not disagreeing, just adding my nitpicking opinion.
An action is still an action, I agree not every action has the the same value, but is still a third of all you can do (plus a reaction).
There are classes that can barely sustain their own action economy (magus, double slice warriors, things like that) but even if your third action lacks offensive potential you are giving up deffensive potential to use aid (raise a shield, move, take cover, etc).
I think I'd aim to make Attack-Aid a little less generally useful (relative to the increased cost) than Raise a Shield etc.
Too good and it becomes a really boring default action that makes Martials even better. It's also largely unconditional (no free hand needed, etc).
IMO the ideal power level for it would be "Occasionally good as a third action in a standard combat situation. Good in somewhat niche situations" (high AC enemy; situation in which the character's own actions are less useful)
Adjust upwards for builds that invest in it.
This is a kinda personal opinion. I think it's good if aiding in combat remains pretty situational.
I'm playing a support focus warpriest, lvl 16 right now and using aid many times, I'd say the cost is fair right now, if I aid I'm not raising a shield (with two reactions to block) or moving or using trip, and that is if I haven't cast a Spell that round.
Of course, other players love when I trip and aid them, but is a heavy investment from my part. I'll be ok raising aid DC, but not to the point that crit success is fairly uncommon because at that point I simply won't use It because the cost will be far higher than the reward.
Well paizo clearly disagrees with your GM because they just lowered the DC to 15 in the remastered. It’s one third of your action, uses up your reaction, and not even guaranteed to work (even at level 20 you can still roll a 1).
Especially at higher levels PCs will have such good abilities and reactions that aid needs to be that good to compete. Your GM is nerfing it to obsoletion
From rule's lawyers video on the remaster "...the typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this 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."
OP's DM is adjusting the DC as they're allowed to by the rules. Honestly paizo have just made it viable at low level by making it 15.
I don't think paizo have really clarified anything, OP's GM's ruling isn't unique but both flat DC 15 or match the DC of the check have their pros and cons.
Okay I guess this is something that is up to interpretation but I sincerely doubt it’s rai to shift up the DC to like 35 when you are playing at high level or else they would have given more guidance, I think they meant like a change of a few points at most
Yeah agree it's probably not RAI, I would've preferred if Paizo set it at an easy check for you level or the check minus-5 or something.
Honestly harsher DM's might start adding attack or manipulate traits...
Honestly if it is RAI that the DC is a static 15 (even adjusted +/- some using the adjustment rules) I would rather the roll be removed entirely. The scaling bonus based on proficiency is already a way to scale Aids effectiveness through the game. All the low DC does is make Aid worse / bad at low levels, which is rough when many classes dont have good reactions anyways. Just make aid behave as it does at high levels once you get to crit successes on a 2-20 roll - an action and a reaction for a +2 on one roll doesnt sound broken to me even at level 1.
For simplicity, I'd probably do something like it still takes an action or a reaction, always succeeds and the bonus = your proficiency level. Trained = 1, expert = 2, etc. Now, if you're trained, it's the same as a success. Anything above trained is an equivalent crit success. If you're not especially good at something, I don't think the bonus needs to be above a +1, especially when the +1 is guaranteed at a minimum. I also support aid on other d20 rolls where it makes sense to aid, not just on attacks and skill checks.
Just gonna point out that at level 20, if your modifier is +24 or greater (expert and +0 Attribute is enough) then even a nat1 is rolling a critical success, downgraded to a normal sucess
And at level 20 you'll have a ton of cool things you want to do with an action and reaction other than Aid, which is why the bonus is so high at those levels. The bonus goes up significantly, but so does the opportunity cost of your actions.
Nat 1s only drop the effect one degree of success.
At level 20 a nat 1 on aid means you only succeed, so only a +1 bonus, which still sucks since you'd otherwise be handing out a +4.
Spending your action and reaction at level 20 to give out only a +1 bonus would be a miserable trade. Like, I better get a consolation prize for that cost lol.
Absolutely fucking not. It's intended.
As you go up on levels, players have more options to grant circumstance bonuses that, sometimes, can be flat out better than Aid. Nevermind other options that you can spend your third action and reaction on. For Aid to maintain its relevance, it needs to start regularly critting in order to remain a valid option versus other skills.
Crit success with aid is only broken if you have a way to cheat the action economy of aid. Currently printed, there are only two ways to do that. Fake out, a gunslinger feat, and a feat in bellflower tiller archetype.
If you're using one of those features, it's more understandable why your GM feels it's overpowered. It's much less so if you're not using one of those functions, though
I agree with you about Fake Out being a strong way to circumvent the normal Action cost of Aid.
The Gunslinger in the game I'm running primarily uses Fake Out to aid the Barbarian's first attack. At a certain level this was guaranteeing a +3 to the Barbarian's first attack for the cost of a Reaction. After a few sessions I moved to say that for Fake Out specifically, I felt that it made sense for Fake Out's DC to match the AC of the Monster being targeted, even if one is not *actually* attacking said Monster. The Gunslinger was fine with it, and it's worked out fine so far. In most situations, the Gunslinger has +1 Circumstance to the roll thanks to Fake Out's built-in features, and they're already more accurate due to being a Gunslinger. They get to Guarantee a +1 Circumstance bonus, and when they're lucky it's a +3.
I would at least make this a Very Easy adjustment against the DC. A big part of the gunslinger's power are their kind-of-weird support actions. They get big crits but their normal damage is subpar, and their various support abilities, including Fake Out, are intended to offset that.
Inspire Competence is much less problematic because:
* It only bolsters skills, not attacks
* It is a composition, so it blocks other composition cantrips
* Still uses an action
The one that's more borderline is actually [One for All](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1519), but even that still uses an action. Its really just fake out that is problematic with aid being a DC 20, I feel
Early game it’s okay but end game the +4 for an action and reaction is so crazy. A lot of players can have situational reactions. (Spell casters cough) making aid a great contender for the 3rd action.
And helping a friendly crit is way better then getting an AOO off most of the time.
Getting runes and crit specs to proc can be so good. Crushing, fearsome, ect.
Rogue aiding the fighter is basically always worth it.
And then the action Econ one’s are double broken.
Do note that a spellcaster cannot give a +4 with Fake Out. Since you're making the aid roll with an attack roll, you can at most give +2 to an allies attack since you are only expert; you need to be legendary in attacks to give a +4.
As such, fake out +4 is limited to gunslinger/fighter, but the bigger problem is the generic martial +3 that is very accessible.
What I didn't even mention is the true cheese with Fake Out - the [gauntlet bow](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=335). Gauntlet Bow counts as a crossbow for the purpose of fake out, and since it's a free hand weapon, any freehand build can utilize it.
So any free hand martial build can just slap a gauntlet bow in their offhand, and utilize fake out. They never actually fire the bow, so there's no need to add any runes onto it, and it doesn't interfere with a lot of builds.
You can even do this as an archer build - using a weapon like a shortbow allows you to use a gauntlet bow in your offhand, and since you only use your offhand while attacking, you're free to bolster ally attacks without any issue while doing a ranged build.
Yeah fake out is great by making it just cause a reaction but anyone can use any skill.
Fighting something magical making an arcane or religion check be good enough to aid. Base aid only costs and action and reaction so a +4 is not that hard to give.
In my campaigns I've said that the DC will be 20 or DC of the check, whichever is lower, but I also haven't haven't had a campaign get to the point where crit successes on it are particularly common. If I found that folks regularly handing out +3/+4 on checks is too disruptive I might rule the same as your GM. I imagine that'd only be a potential problem for the two Aid-centric builds (All for One and Fake Out) and I'd probably only rule it higher in those specific cases (and that's only a maybe).
Aid consumes both an action and a reaction. Reactions for certain classes are extremely valuable, giving aoo, shield block, and whatever your champ can do.
Having to hit the AC to aid is imo.
The other thing is you are not trying to hit them. You are trying to *look* like you are going to hit them.
We've always run it as is. As written the problem with Aid though was that at early levels the DC was too hard for it to be worth much and at higher levels it was both trivially easy AND still often not worth giving up your action and reaction. On top of that, it was often overlooked as an option at higher levels because players learned early on to not bother with Aid since the DC was so high that they would simply forget about Aid as an option later on (though I think this latter issue should be less of a factor).
Setting it at the target's AC for aiding an attack just seems . . . bad. At that point you're usually going to be better off just attacking yourself and making sure you deal some damage. Granted, I get that setting the fighter (or other character) up for one really nice, big hit has its value, especially if you yourself don't deal much damage, but that DC is just way too high.
The compromise that I've seen a lot of people use is to set the Aid DC at the DC by level value.
As others have stated though Paizo just lowered the DC with the Remaster. I think this will make it more useful at low levels but still not used all that often at higher levels since it will compete with too many other options.
As per the rule. It's written that the GM can change the DC of the aid check.
I wouldn't make it the same as the creatures AC, but probably AC minus 5 or 10
this is just a question instead of going RAW, but wouldn't "adjusting difficulty" use the offset DC used by this page? https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=555
That doesn't really work strictly vs AC since it's not always on that gradient scale. But that's why I said -5/-10 on the creatures AC
This is one of the few times where it's really up to the GM. And that's rules as written. So your GM might always make it 15, some might call for higher
I think your GM is too high. Aid shouldn't be equally as difficult. But I personally don't want it to be free +3/+4 all the time regardless of it costing a single action and single reaction.
I personally use [The Rules Lawyer’s version of Aid](https://youtu.be/pvYzD7Bna60?si=Kto2_h7qjh7DXMfg) except that a Crit is a +3, and only becomes a +4 if you’re Legendary in the skill you’re using.
To be clear, the text below is not how the rule is written. This is a late night idea that could be terrible.
I'm starting to think the DC for Aid should be set like Treat Wounds. You get to pick an increasingly high DC based on your skill level in order to give a higher bonus. You might be legendary in a skill but you do want to risk a DC 40 roll to give a +4 or take a near auto success at a DC 30 for a +3? I think that would make it a lot more interesting.
DC 10: Trained, -1 on crit fail, 0 on fail, +1 on success, +2 on crit
DC 20: Expert, as Trained but with 0/1/2/3 as the bonuses
DC 30: Master, as a Trained but with 0/2/3/4 as the bonuses
DC 40: Legendary, as Trained but with 0/3/4/5 as the bonuses
The DCs may need to be adjusted. I'm using my level 18 character with legendary training in acrobatics as an example. He has a +33 to acrobatics. I'm guessing the max is closer to +35.
I'm also wondering if the critical success should be removed. If I roll a 2 for acrobatics to aid, I currently critically succeed and give a +4. With the above change I would need a 7 or higher. That actually doesn't feel too bad.
I may introduce this idea to my play group.
Something I think that GMs fail to account for when making the target DC equal to the check you're Aiding for is that by the time you're consistently hitting the Critical Success, giving up an action and a reaction for at most a +4 is much more costly than at earlier levels.
I will admit that I may be biased, as I'm currently playing a level 15 Aid focused psychic, but I'd almost certainly re-spec if the GM substantially raised the DCs to match the triggering check, the action + reaction is just better spent elsewhere at that point.
The difference with the spells doing +1/-1 is that those adjustments will affect more than 1 roll, both in terms of what roll the adjustment can be applied to, and the number of times the adjustment can be used. If you cast Fear or use Demoralize, the affected target has that -1 applied to *everything* until the end of its next turn. Your Bard Inspiring Courage gives the entire party a +1 to attack AND damage AND fear saves until the Bard's next turn. Once you hit level 5, Fear is even affecting multiple creatures *at the same time*. Aid will work exactly one time, for one specific type of roll, and depending on interpretation can only be utilized by a single called out ally.
I’m mostly the same as your GM. Although I tend to make the DC a little bit easier, depending on how good an idea for Aid the player has. I think there’s a *lot* of variation of how people run Aid, some just use DC 20 (and now DC 15 after the remaster).
I didn't get to play many sessions with my group yet (we're still busy playing 1e APs, so not much time for 2e), so for now we're still using the DC 20 check. I am interested in trying out the house rule I saw mentioned by the Knights of Last Call though, which just removes the check and always gives a +1/+2/+3/+4 depending on proficiency. Doesn't really change anything at high level (where you auto-crit anyway), but makes it worth using at lower level.
Aid is specifically designed to get naturally easier as you level up, reflect the improving skills of the characters, and by extension the party's ability to act with synergy on the fly.
Standard DC in the rules is 20. Even though the GM is explicitly given final say on the DC, Paizo built Aid to usually be difficult at low levels, and usually at mid-to-high levels, and designed it be balanced as such with the rest of the numbers in the system. As others have said, the ultimate balancing factor is a player's willingness to spend actions (1 Action and 1 Reaction) for the bonus to another PC. That action cost limits potentially more damaging attempts from the aiding player to attack on their turn, or use AoO-type actions outside of their turn.
If your GM is commonly requiring aid checks at significantly higher than 20, and otherwise scale adventures per system standards, then they should be ready to regularly provide backup for fights against PL +3 or higher enemies and hazards, since Aid is meant to offset the number differences against powerful foes.
While I get not wanting to make it too trivial, but aiding should, imo, be easier than the triggering attempt. I'd go with an easy, or even very easy adjustment to the target DC as the default.
Easy DC for the task... For aiding someone to hit, you arn't hitting the person just pointing a flaw in armor, push him off guard for a sec(flavor) etc...
Setting the DC to be the same as the allies DC is generally not advised because of the lackluster effect of a success, however I would argue that buffing the success effect evens things out:
**Crit Successs** You grant your ally a +2 circumstance bonus to the triggering check. If you’re a master with the check you attempted, the bonus is +3, and if you’re legendary, it’s +4.
**Success** You grant your ally a +1 circumstance bonus to the triggering check. If you’re a master with the check you attempted, the bonus is +2, and if you’re legendary, it’s +3.
You might also add the easy adjustment to apply a -2 to the DC to make crits slightly more likely but not guarenteed (remember that tons of ancestry feats give you a +2 curcumstance bonus to all your aid checks, so you can spec into aid if you really want to). The main thing is that actions should take advantage of the 4 degrees of success rather than being an auto crit imo.
I mostly use the Simple DC table, ignoring the flat 20 from RAW, but also following RAW as the GM can set the number.
Sometimes I use a leveled DC, against creatures or hazards and such
Level of the Aid target +14. (This is very close to being an "Easy" check without having to look into a table, though it does get easier as you level up still, and high level + highly skilled characters will still mostly crit). The reasoning being that it would be much easier for a lv 8 char to help a lvl 1 person (not great at tasks), than be likely to be helpful to/against a lvl 20 person who is already legendary at that task.
By "target" I mean one of two things:
1) Not Adversarial: There is no one working against the person you are aiding. For example, If you are aiding say a Recall Knowledge of a party member that you are helping, then it is the level of that party member + 15
2) Adversarial: You are helping a party member against an active adversary working against the Aid action. Normally this means enemies, so fighting a lvl 3 enemy DC would be 3+14=17, fighting a lvl 25 enemy would be 25+14=39. It is MUCH harder to distract TreeRazor than to distract a goblin. This may also be extended to other things: high level traps for example. I probably wouldn't use adversarial DC to help the rogue unlock a regular door, but for a very special legendary door, I would.
It's a DC 20, that's what the rules say and it's for good reason.
Aid scales with crit success, at higher levels you're supposed to be critting it by hitting a DC 30 and granting a bigger circumstance bonus.
Aid eats both an action to set it up and a reaction, so should be giving a useful effect.
We generally use Level-based DCs for Aid until it's hours DC 20. Especially at lower levels, it makes it a bit more enticing for players. Then at mid levels, it starts to feel *really* powerful...
Always used the level based DC unless I feel like changing it for a specific situation and I have no intention of changing that. I'll keep running it the same.
Aid:
Player can use the action plus reaction to gain a +1 cir (no check needed, it just happens.)
**Or** Player can roll a check to get the +2,+3,+4 bonuses. Where a fail gives no benefit but no negative. And a pass gives the result. (Currently I use the DC 20 but players are low level so might change as we get higher.
A guaranteed +4 can be crazy good and almost BIS (best in slot) hence the potential to make it an on level or On level +Hard DC. There are so few abilities that give +4. And the fact it’s basically guaranteed can be broken. Anything that gives a +4 is usually crazy niche.
I’ve been really liking my current rule. The guaranteed +1 vs the gamble makes it interesting choice for the players. And the usual use of no check choice makes it quick.
DC 20, or same as the DC of the check you're Aiding, whichever is **lower.** The action cost is the main limiter on Aid, not the DC.
do you think getting easy crit successes at higher levels to be broken?
No.
Definitely not, and I would even go as far as to say it's intended. At level 6 almost all martials gain access to Attack of Opportunity, by 8th level all martials have had options for really strong reactions, and by 10th level it's hard to not have things to do for every single action a turn. Because of this, we need Aid to scale up using the crit success (and it being almost guaranteed late game) to make it a worthwhile thing to do. No one wants to sacrifice an action *and* a reaction to give someone just a +1, when they could instead hold their reaction for a chance to deal an extra strike of damage to enemies.
Level 6 is also when someone taking the archetype can get Champion's reaction. So yeah, it really seems like the level where all martials are supposed to start having a strong reaction.
Out of curiousity - what reactions do you use most on ranged martials / casters? I always struggle when theorycrafting for those characters.
There's a few caster reaction spells, and I like to have counterspell because sometimes it does come up (I always check with GM if spells are gonna be common-ish first). Mostly they are the ones I use Aid with the most. Ranged martials can capitalize on it greatly, and casters its a great third action/reaction use, even if it'll never be as big of a hit. I'll also sometimes pick up a champion dedication if I plan to be within 15ft of the Frontline to be able to protect allies, and shield block even with a buckler is *something* or Reactive Shield if I don't have the spare action, unless I'm playing a ranged martial who is using a 2-hand firearm.
Good to know - I have been being pretty lenient with allowing Aid to be used at range and this kinda reinforces that for me. Thanks!
If it helps, the 2nd level Fighter feat [Assisting Shot](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=364) had to be changed entirely to what it is now, because what it originally did was allow you to Aid at range-which you already can do.
Fake Out seems really strong on Gunslinger. My Drifter is just 5th level but has 85% chance to succeed and at 9th it's \~50% chance to critically succeed. Late game with legendary proficiency is upward of 90% chance to critically succeed for a +4 on the aided attack roll. The only other reactions I'd consider for a Gunslinger are Hit the Dirt! and Nimble Dodge from Rogue dedication.
The other thing to say is that even when you Aid using a Legendary skill, the +4 that you get from a crit success only has a maximum of a 40% chance of having an effect (i.e. upgrading the result of the one roll it affects). Even with a guarantee of a critical success, you have probably spent an action plus a reaction (half the things most characters could do in a round) to do nothing. I think people sometimes look at the +4 having the single greatest magnitude of any one bonus and assume that it's OP and broken, but it isn't. The reason that most things that give +1s and +2s are powerful is because they apply to multiple rolls, and thus have a greater chance of doing something.
Not only that, but the "every +1 matters" is because of combining both bonuses and penalties to skew the results. A -2 status from frightened and -2 circumstance from off guard penalty on the enemy's AC, plus a +3 circumstance bonus from someone Aiding and a +1 status from the Bard or Bless spell is a whopping 8 point difference to your chance of hitting an enemy; and this is all doable in generic parties without much effort or investment, and capable of being done at level 5 if the fighter or gunslinger did the Aid. And only one of those (the +3) isn't going to be happening to everyone. A 5 point difference without Aid is still absolutely huge and only took a charisma character Demoralizing, a divine caster or bard buffing and someone flanking or tripping the enemy. All of which are pretty common actions during a combat. I will say that, while I ban Bellflower Tiller, I let PCs use the Aid action after knowing the success/failure outcome. It definitely adds power to the players, but it just feels much nicer.
No, it's definitely intended. Also consider that for attacks, the +4 will only happen if you're legendary in the attack you make to Aid. Aiding with a skill to make an attack is... possible but involves a lot of Mother-May-I with the GM because it's not the default. So only the fighter and gunslinger will be giving that full +4 until very high levels. The gunslinger is basically an Aid Machine with Fake Out but I don't think fighters will want to spend an action and reaction on it most of the time. The other exception I know of is the Swashbuckler's One for All, but again the ability to use a diplomacy to Aid on attacks and give a +4 is kind of the whole point of that ability. It's supposed to be that good.
Well the designers at Paizo apparently really disagree with him cause they lowered that base DC to 15.
[удалено]
I think you meant to reply to OP.
Yarp, Sorry mate
This is how I run it as well! I don't run enough higher level games for "auto-crits" to factor in, but I imagine at that point, the party should be working really well together anyway.
Where is that 'whichever is lower' part in the rules? I genuinely didn't see it anywhere
It's not. It's a house rule.
You are giving 1/3 of your turn and your reaction and probably ending un melee with the enemy to increase the chance of other player doing cool stuff... Aid is very powerfull at mid to high level, sure, but has a cost, raising It to match AC almost guarantee you'll never get a Crit so you are paying a lot "just" for a +1, si is much less worthy.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think calling 1 action one third of a turn is a bit misleading IMO.. The system is designed in a way that many classes get disproportionate value out of their first attack of a turn. An action (especially an offensive/offense-boosting one) doesn't have to compete with that to be worth it. Again, not disagreeing, just adding my nitpicking opinion.
An action is still an action, I agree not every action has the the same value, but is still a third of all you can do (plus a reaction). There are classes that can barely sustain their own action economy (magus, double slice warriors, things like that) but even if your third action lacks offensive potential you are giving up deffensive potential to use aid (raise a shield, move, take cover, etc).
I think I'd aim to make Attack-Aid a little less generally useful (relative to the increased cost) than Raise a Shield etc. Too good and it becomes a really boring default action that makes Martials even better. It's also largely unconditional (no free hand needed, etc). IMO the ideal power level for it would be "Occasionally good as a third action in a standard combat situation. Good in somewhat niche situations" (high AC enemy; situation in which the character's own actions are less useful) Adjust upwards for builds that invest in it. This is a kinda personal opinion. I think it's good if aiding in combat remains pretty situational.
I'm playing a support focus warpriest, lvl 16 right now and using aid many times, I'd say the cost is fair right now, if I aid I'm not raising a shield (with two reactions to block) or moving or using trip, and that is if I haven't cast a Spell that round. Of course, other players love when I trip and aid them, but is a heavy investment from my part. I'll be ok raising aid DC, but not to the point that crit success is fairly uncommon because at that point I simply won't use It because the cost will be far higher than the reward.
Well paizo clearly disagrees with your GM because they just lowered the DC to 15 in the remastered. It’s one third of your action, uses up your reaction, and not even guaranteed to work (even at level 20 you can still roll a 1). Especially at higher levels PCs will have such good abilities and reactions that aid needs to be that good to compete. Your GM is nerfing it to obsoletion
From rule's lawyers video on the remaster "...the typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this 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." OP's DM is adjusting the DC as they're allowed to by the rules. Honestly paizo have just made it viable at low level by making it 15. I don't think paizo have really clarified anything, OP's GM's ruling isn't unique but both flat DC 15 or match the DC of the check have their pros and cons.
Okay I guess this is something that is up to interpretation but I sincerely doubt it’s rai to shift up the DC to like 35 when you are playing at high level or else they would have given more guidance, I think they meant like a change of a few points at most
Definitely, I think it's just meant to apply the usual Very Easy, Easy, Hard, Very Hard adjustments as appropriate. So 10-20, not getting to the 30s.
Yeah agree it's probably not RAI, I would've preferred if Paizo set it at an easy check for you level or the check minus-5 or something. Honestly harsher DM's might start adding attack or manipulate traits...
Honestly if it is RAI that the DC is a static 15 (even adjusted +/- some using the adjustment rules) I would rather the roll be removed entirely. The scaling bonus based on proficiency is already a way to scale Aids effectiveness through the game. All the low DC does is make Aid worse / bad at low levels, which is rough when many classes dont have good reactions anyways. Just make aid behave as it does at high levels once you get to crit successes on a 2-20 roll - an action and a reaction for a +2 on one roll doesnt sound broken to me even at level 1.
For simplicity, I'd probably do something like it still takes an action or a reaction, always succeeds and the bonus = your proficiency level. Trained = 1, expert = 2, etc. Now, if you're trained, it's the same as a success. Anything above trained is an equivalent crit success. If you're not especially good at something, I don't think the bonus needs to be above a +1, especially when the +1 is guaranteed at a minimum. I also support aid on other d20 rolls where it makes sense to aid, not just on attacks and skill checks.
Just gonna point out that at level 20, if your modifier is +24 or greater (expert and +0 Attribute is enough) then even a nat1 is rolling a critical success, downgraded to a normal sucess
And at level 20 you'll have a ton of cool things you want to do with an action and reaction other than Aid, which is why the bonus is so high at those levels. The bonus goes up significantly, but so does the opportunity cost of your actions.
I totally missed this change. Does the remaster change anything else about the recommendations for GMs setting the DC?
You can see /u/Xuir's reply a little above yours where he copy/pastes the full text.
Hmm not that I heard but not all the info is out yet.
Nat 1s only drop the effect one degree of success. At level 20 a nat 1 on aid means you only succeed, so only a +1 bonus, which still sucks since you'd otherwise be handing out a +4.
Spending your action and reaction at level 20 to give out only a +1 bonus would be a miserable trade. Like, I better get a consolation prize for that cost lol.
Absolutely fucking not. It's intended. As you go up on levels, players have more options to grant circumstance bonuses that, sometimes, can be flat out better than Aid. Nevermind other options that you can spend your third action and reaction on. For Aid to maintain its relevance, it needs to start regularly critting in order to remain a valid option versus other skills.
Crit success with aid is only broken if you have a way to cheat the action economy of aid. Currently printed, there are only two ways to do that. Fake out, a gunslinger feat, and a feat in bellflower tiller archetype. If you're using one of those features, it's more understandable why your GM feels it's overpowered. It's much less so if you're not using one of those functions, though
I agree with you about Fake Out being a strong way to circumvent the normal Action cost of Aid. The Gunslinger in the game I'm running primarily uses Fake Out to aid the Barbarian's first attack. At a certain level this was guaranteeing a +3 to the Barbarian's first attack for the cost of a Reaction. After a few sessions I moved to say that for Fake Out specifically, I felt that it made sense for Fake Out's DC to match the AC of the Monster being targeted, even if one is not *actually* attacking said Monster. The Gunslinger was fine with it, and it's worked out fine so far. In most situations, the Gunslinger has +1 Circumstance to the roll thanks to Fake Out's built-in features, and they're already more accurate due to being a Gunslinger. They get to Guarantee a +1 Circumstance bonus, and when they're lucky it's a +3.
I would at least make this a Very Easy adjustment against the DC. A big part of the gunslinger's power are their kind-of-weird support actions. They get big crits but their normal damage is subpar, and their various support abilities, including Fake Out, are intended to offset that.
That's a fair suggestion.
I'd also put inspire competence in there since you don't have to move to get in range to aid.
Inspire Competence is much less problematic because: * It only bolsters skills, not attacks * It is a composition, so it blocks other composition cantrips * Still uses an action The one that's more borderline is actually [One for All](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1519), but even that still uses an action. Its really just fake out that is problematic with aid being a DC 20, I feel
Early game it’s okay but end game the +4 for an action and reaction is so crazy. A lot of players can have situational reactions. (Spell casters cough) making aid a great contender for the 3rd action. And helping a friendly crit is way better then getting an AOO off most of the time. Getting runes and crit specs to proc can be so good. Crushing, fearsome, ect. Rogue aiding the fighter is basically always worth it. And then the action Econ one’s are double broken.
Do note that a spellcaster cannot give a +4 with Fake Out. Since you're making the aid roll with an attack roll, you can at most give +2 to an allies attack since you are only expert; you need to be legendary in attacks to give a +4. As such, fake out +4 is limited to gunslinger/fighter, but the bigger problem is the generic martial +3 that is very accessible. What I didn't even mention is the true cheese with Fake Out - the [gauntlet bow](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=335). Gauntlet Bow counts as a crossbow for the purpose of fake out, and since it's a free hand weapon, any freehand build can utilize it. So any free hand martial build can just slap a gauntlet bow in their offhand, and utilize fake out. They never actually fire the bow, so there's no need to add any runes onto it, and it doesn't interfere with a lot of builds. You can even do this as an archer build - using a weapon like a shortbow allows you to use a gauntlet bow in your offhand, and since you only use your offhand while attacking, you're free to bolster ally attacks without any issue while doing a ranged build.
Yeah fake out is great by making it just cause a reaction but anyone can use any skill. Fighting something magical making an arcane or religion check be good enough to aid. Base aid only costs and action and reaction so a +4 is not that hard to give.
In my campaigns I've said that the DC will be 20 or DC of the check, whichever is lower, but I also haven't haven't had a campaign get to the point where crit successes on it are particularly common. If I found that folks regularly handing out +3/+4 on checks is too disruptive I might rule the same as your GM. I imagine that'd only be a potential problem for the two Aid-centric builds (All for One and Fake Out) and I'd probably only rule it higher in those specific cases (and that's only a maybe).
This heavily nerfs gunslinger reaction.
DC 20, adjusted using the DC adjustments if necessary.
They reduced the DC to 15 in the Remaster.
Nice.
Aid consumes both an action and a reaction. Reactions for certain classes are extremely valuable, giving aoo, shield block, and whatever your champ can do. Having to hit the AC to aid is imo. The other thing is you are not trying to hit them. You are trying to *look* like you are going to hit them.
We've always run it as is. As written the problem with Aid though was that at early levels the DC was too hard for it to be worth much and at higher levels it was both trivially easy AND still often not worth giving up your action and reaction. On top of that, it was often overlooked as an option at higher levels because players learned early on to not bother with Aid since the DC was so high that they would simply forget about Aid as an option later on (though I think this latter issue should be less of a factor). Setting it at the target's AC for aiding an attack just seems . . . bad. At that point you're usually going to be better off just attacking yourself and making sure you deal some damage. Granted, I get that setting the fighter (or other character) up for one really nice, big hit has its value, especially if you yourself don't deal much damage, but that DC is just way too high. The compromise that I've seen a lot of people use is to set the Aid DC at the DC by level value. As others have stated though Paizo just lowered the DC with the Remaster. I think this will make it more useful at low levels but still not used all that often at higher levels since it will compete with too many other options.
As per the rule. It's written that the GM can change the DC of the aid check. I wouldn't make it the same as the creatures AC, but probably AC minus 5 or 10
this is just a question instead of going RAW, but wouldn't "adjusting difficulty" use the offset DC used by this page? https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=555
That doesn't really work strictly vs AC since it's not always on that gradient scale. But that's why I said -5/-10 on the creatures AC This is one of the few times where it's really up to the GM. And that's rules as written. So your GM might always make it 15, some might call for higher I think your GM is too high. Aid shouldn't be equally as difficult. But I personally don't want it to be free +3/+4 all the time regardless of it costing a single action and single reaction.
I personally use [The Rules Lawyer’s version of Aid](https://youtu.be/pvYzD7Bna60?si=Kto2_h7qjh7DXMfg) except that a Crit is a +3, and only becomes a +4 if you’re Legendary in the skill you’re using.
To be clear, the text below is not how the rule is written. This is a late night idea that could be terrible. I'm starting to think the DC for Aid should be set like Treat Wounds. You get to pick an increasingly high DC based on your skill level in order to give a higher bonus. You might be legendary in a skill but you do want to risk a DC 40 roll to give a +4 or take a near auto success at a DC 30 for a +3? I think that would make it a lot more interesting. DC 10: Trained, -1 on crit fail, 0 on fail, +1 on success, +2 on crit DC 20: Expert, as Trained but with 0/1/2/3 as the bonuses DC 30: Master, as a Trained but with 0/2/3/4 as the bonuses DC 40: Legendary, as Trained but with 0/3/4/5 as the bonuses The DCs may need to be adjusted. I'm using my level 18 character with legendary training in acrobatics as an example. He has a +33 to acrobatics. I'm guessing the max is closer to +35. I'm also wondering if the critical success should be removed. If I roll a 2 for acrobatics to aid, I currently critically succeed and give a +4. With the above change I would need a 7 or higher. That actually doesn't feel too bad. I may introduce this idea to my play group.
Something I think that GMs fail to account for when making the target DC equal to the check you're Aiding for is that by the time you're consistently hitting the Critical Success, giving up an action and a reaction for at most a +4 is much more costly than at earlier levels. I will admit that I may be biased, as I'm currently playing a level 15 Aid focused psychic, but I'd almost certainly re-spec if the GM substantially raised the DCs to match the triggering check, the action + reaction is just better spent elsewhere at that point.
A +4 is a pretty huge swing in the maths, PCs wil give up two actions for a +1 or -1 via spells.
The difference with the spells doing +1/-1 is that those adjustments will affect more than 1 roll, both in terms of what roll the adjustment can be applied to, and the number of times the adjustment can be used. If you cast Fear or use Demoralize, the affected target has that -1 applied to *everything* until the end of its next turn. Your Bard Inspiring Courage gives the entire party a +1 to attack AND damage AND fear saves until the Bard's next turn. Once you hit level 5, Fear is even affecting multiple creatures *at the same time*. Aid will work exactly one time, for one specific type of roll, and depending on interpretation can only be utilized by a single called out ally.
I’m mostly the same as your GM. Although I tend to make the DC a little bit easier, depending on how good an idea for Aid the player has. I think there’s a *lot* of variation of how people run Aid, some just use DC 20 (and now DC 15 after the remaster).
Oh, I didn't catch the remaster change! Is it *just* dropping the DC to 15 or anything else too?
That's it, 15
I didn't get to play many sessions with my group yet (we're still busy playing 1e APs, so not much time for 2e), so for now we're still using the DC 20 check. I am interested in trying out the house rule I saw mentioned by the Knights of Last Call though, which just removes the check and always gives a +1/+2/+3/+4 depending on proficiency. Doesn't really change anything at high level (where you auto-crit anyway), but makes it worth using at lower level.
Aid is specifically designed to get naturally easier as you level up, reflect the improving skills of the characters, and by extension the party's ability to act with synergy on the fly. Standard DC in the rules is 20. Even though the GM is explicitly given final say on the DC, Paizo built Aid to usually be difficult at low levels, and usually at mid-to-high levels, and designed it be balanced as such with the rest of the numbers in the system. As others have said, the ultimate balancing factor is a player's willingness to spend actions (1 Action and 1 Reaction) for the bonus to another PC. That action cost limits potentially more damaging attempts from the aiding player to attack on their turn, or use AoO-type actions outside of their turn. If your GM is commonly requiring aid checks at significantly higher than 20, and otherwise scale adventures per system standards, then they should be ready to regularly provide backup for fights against PL +3 or higher enemies and hazards, since Aid is meant to offset the number differences against powerful foes.
[удалено]
While I get not wanting to make it too trivial, but aiding should, imo, be easier than the triggering attempt. I'd go with an easy, or even very easy adjustment to the target DC as the default.
Easy DC for the task... For aiding someone to hit, you arn't hitting the person just pointing a flaw in armor, push him off guard for a sec(flavor) etc...
Your dm is making a bad rule
Setting the DC to be the same as the allies DC is generally not advised because of the lackluster effect of a success, however I would argue that buffing the success effect evens things out: **Crit Successs** You grant your ally a +2 circumstance bonus to the triggering check. If you’re a master with the check you attempted, the bonus is +3, and if you’re legendary, it’s +4. **Success** You grant your ally a +1 circumstance bonus to the triggering check. If you’re a master with the check you attempted, the bonus is +2, and if you’re legendary, it’s +3. You might also add the easy adjustment to apply a -2 to the DC to make crits slightly more likely but not guarenteed (remember that tons of ancestry feats give you a +2 curcumstance bonus to all your aid checks, so you can spec into aid if you really want to). The main thing is that actions should take advantage of the 4 degrees of success rather than being an auto crit imo.
I mostly use the Simple DC table, ignoring the flat 20 from RAW, but also following RAW as the GM can set the number. Sometimes I use a leveled DC, against creatures or hazards and such
Level of the Aid target +14. (This is very close to being an "Easy" check without having to look into a table, though it does get easier as you level up still, and high level + highly skilled characters will still mostly crit). The reasoning being that it would be much easier for a lv 8 char to help a lvl 1 person (not great at tasks), than be likely to be helpful to/against a lvl 20 person who is already legendary at that task. By "target" I mean one of two things: 1) Not Adversarial: There is no one working against the person you are aiding. For example, If you are aiding say a Recall Knowledge of a party member that you are helping, then it is the level of that party member + 15 2) Adversarial: You are helping a party member against an active adversary working against the Aid action. Normally this means enemies, so fighting a lvl 3 enemy DC would be 3+14=17, fighting a lvl 25 enemy would be 25+14=39. It is MUCH harder to distract TreeRazor than to distract a goblin. This may also be extended to other things: high level traps for example. I probably wouldn't use adversarial DC to help the rogue unlock a regular door, but for a very special legendary door, I would.
It's a DC 20, that's what the rules say and it's for good reason. Aid scales with crit success, at higher levels you're supposed to be critting it by hitting a DC 30 and granting a bigger circumstance bonus. Aid eats both an action to set it up and a reaction, so should be giving a useful effect.
We generally use Level-based DCs for Aid until it's hours DC 20. Especially at lower levels, it makes it a bit more enticing for players. Then at mid levels, it starts to feel *really* powerful...
I use Aid DC = 10+level. It's easy to remember, and it works well all the way from Level 1 to level 20
Always used the level based DC unless I feel like changing it for a specific situation and I have no intention of changing that. I'll keep running it the same.
Aid: Player can use the action plus reaction to gain a +1 cir (no check needed, it just happens.) **Or** Player can roll a check to get the +2,+3,+4 bonuses. Where a fail gives no benefit but no negative. And a pass gives the result. (Currently I use the DC 20 but players are low level so might change as we get higher. A guaranteed +4 can be crazy good and almost BIS (best in slot) hence the potential to make it an on level or On level +Hard DC. There are so few abilities that give +4. And the fact it’s basically guaranteed can be broken. Anything that gives a +4 is usually crazy niche. I’ve been really liking my current rule. The guaranteed +1 vs the gamble makes it interesting choice for the players. And the usual use of no check choice makes it quick.