How many 'Aid Another' bonuses can someone get?

In any situation, how many people can perform an 'Aid Another' action to any given recipiant?

How many B1 Combat Droids can do Aid Another on another droid shooting at someone?

How many R2s can work on a 'rendering farm' to to aid another with an astrogation check?

How many Star Fighters can Aid Another with an attack to increase the odds their friend fresh of random desert planet hits his target?

How many Pit Droids can assist someone repairing a freighter, thereby granting Aid Another bonuses to mechancis checks?

Etc, Etc, Etc...

I can't find anyything anywhere stating a limit. If I were making a ruling, I'd say no more than 5 peopel can assist in any task, thereby granting no more than a +10 bonus (under normal circumstances). But that's just a guess, and I'm hoping there's somethign actualyl STATED somewhere, otherwise, things could get really absurd.
Winner of "You Make The... Contest #1: Starfighters"
I don't think a hard number is actually stated anywhere but when talking about cooperation with skills (SECR 61) it does say "the GM limits cooperation as she sees fit for the circumstances."  I would carry that to Aid Another as well although the two aren't exactly the same.

For what it's worth I also feel there should be a five assistant maximum (in part because weapon batteries can't have more than six gunners).  I'll also note that I may INCREASE the roll requirement for aid another to (DC primary is trying to hit -20 if greater than 10) because I feel extreme rolls require extreme help to have an affect; I do however believe others could aid these bigger aid another rolls.
 
There's nothing hard and fast in the core rules, but I just noticed the other day that the rules for skill challenges in Galaxy of Intrigue limit aid another bonuses to +10, so I'd say your ruling sounds fair.

In my game, I generally set a limit on how many people can aid depending on what it is that's being done. If one PC is doing something fiddly on a datapad or something, I'll generally only allow one other person to aid, but if it's something like performing first aid on a wounded comrade, I'll pretty much let the whole group help (not just because this nets the wounded PC more HP, but also because it seems to fit with first aid scenes like the one in Saving Private Ryan where the most of the squad tries to save their medic after he's been wounded assaulting the machine gun nest).


On a side note, StevenO's suggestion of possibly increasing the aid DC makes me think of D&D 4e's errata'd aid another rules. It's no longer a flat DC 10, but is now 10 + half-level. (The idea was to stop aid another becoming an automatic thing; that being said, I'm playing in an epic level campaign right now and it's quite easy to have a skill modifier so high that it's still an automatic success even with the addition of half your level to the DC.)
"Patience is the calm acceptance that things can happen in a different order than the one you have in mind."

~ David G Allen

There is no set limit, which is good.  The exact max would change based on the situation and the check being made.  For instance, I probably wouldn't allow more than two Aid Another checks for a First Aid attempt, since I have a hard time pickturing more than three people actually being useful around a wounded being, but I would allow a good number more, five or six, for a Surgery attempt in a well-equipped operating room.  Another example would be that I probably would allow only one Aid Another for a hacking attempt, but for an attempt to write a complicated program, I'll allow a good number more.  Solme tasks preformed in some situations are more condusive to team action.

In combat, I don't put any practical limit on the number of Aid Anothers for helping an attack roll.  Sure, I might call it at ten, but for actual encounters, that'll hardly matter.  I do this for two reasons.  First, Aid Another is almost always the less effect action.  If the attack would only hit on a roll of 20, and one Aid Another would reduce that to a roll of 18+, then both Aid Another and attacking still just double the average damage dealt.  Second, as a GM, I like to group my NPCs up into fire squads sometimes with six, seven, or even more members.  It makes the encounters with big groups of weak NPCs much easier to handle.

And you, Lynn, are correct that Aid Another can very quickly get out of hand.  That's why Rapport is one of the most powerful Feats most NPCs can get, and Coordinate (+5) can easily break the game if the party often works with NPCs (like, say, on a capital ship).  There is a little that the GM can do, but the truth is that well-designed helpers, even with only two of them, can be giving +8 to almost any Skill check made outside combat.  And if you allow up to five, well, those bonuses can get to the point where Skill checks outside combat might as well not have a DC.  I'll see if I can find my Aid Another-happy Minion build.  Among Heroes, I get a little annoyed when my players choose to take Rapport a couple times and someone gets Skilled Advisor.  Then, for almost every important check, I can expect to see a bonus +13 to the roll from allies.  I don't dislike teamwork in the group, but that mixed with Skill Focus means that most DCs mean nothing. 

I really wish that the Aid Another DC was more complex.  A flat DC 10 (or roll of ten with no specified target, which is a whole other problem) just doesn't work very well when dealing with the complexities in actual play.  It is functional, but so easy that, in most cases, the bonus might as well be automatic.
"And the TL;DR award goes to Raul Torin!" - CorranHornIsAwesome Official SAGA Edition Errata Dawn of Defiance Other Articles Thanks to GreySword for compiling these
For instance, I probably wouldn't allow more than two Aid Another checks for a First Aid attempt, since I have a hard time pickturing more than three people actually being useful around a wounded being

These guys might beg to differ.

I really wish that the Aid Another DC was more complex. A flat DC 10 (or roll of ten with no specified target, which is a whole other problem) just doesn't work very well when dealing with the complexities in actual play. It is functional, but so easy that, in most cases, the bonus might as well be automatic.

This is precisely why the D&D 4e devs errata'd it so the aid another DC is 10 + half the aider's level. As I said in my post above, though, in my experience of epic-level play, adding half your level doesn't really make much difference. Aiding is still more or less automatic.
"Patience is the calm acceptance that things can happen in a different order than the one you have in mind."

~ David G Allen

I really wish that the Aid Another DC was more complex. A flat DC 10 (or roll of ten with no specified target, which is a whole other problem) just doesn't work very well when dealing with the complexities in actual play. It is functional, but so easy that, in most cases, the bonus might as well be automatic.

This is precisely why the D&D 4e devs errata'd it so the aid another DC is 10 + half the aider's level. As I said in my post above, though, in my experience of epic-level play, adding half your level doesn't really make much difference. Aiding is still more or less automatic.

But in all honesty I hate that rule just as much because the difficulty in aiding a task goes up even if the difficulty of the task doesn't change one bit.  It would be just as hard for a 10th-level character to aid someone on attempting DC 25 check as it would be for a 1st-level character and to me that's wrong; at least the 10th-level character could potential do the task but a 1st-level character with the same training (I'm using none.) has no chance to perform the task they are aiding.  Maybe my "target DC-20" waits to long to start increasing the roll to aid but that is easy enough to adjust.


I really wish that the Aid Another DC was more complex. A flat DC 10 (or roll of ten with no specified target, which is a whole other problem) just doesn't work very well when dealing with the complexities in actual play. It is functional, but so easy that, in most cases, the bonus might as well be automatic.

This is precisely why the D&D 4e devs errata'd it so the aid another DC is 10 + half the aider's level. As I said in my post above, though, in my experience of epic-level play, adding half your level doesn't really make much difference. Aiding is still more or less automatic.

But in all honesty I hate that rule just as much because the difficulty in aiding a task goes up even if the difficulty of the task doesn't change one bit.


It does make some sense if you consider that your chance of contributing meaningfully to a task is related to the relative training and skill of the person you're aiding as well as the difficulty of the task.

As a for instance, let's say two buddies with little or no medical training find themselves having to care for an injured person. Pooling their limited knowledge is probably going to be quite useful, assuming they can successfully think of something useful to do.

But if one of those guys turns up alongside a trained paramedic, he can try and be useful, but it's highly unlikely that he's going to be able to offer any medical insights that will help the paramedic rather than hindering. 

But if one of those guys turns up alongside a trained paramedic, he can try and be useful, but it's highly unlikely that he's going to be able to offer any medical insights that will help the paramedic rather than hindering. 

Well, in that case tc DC should be based on the skill of the one being helped! So the DC = skill of primary +5 or something like that?

20801.jpg

Show
I really wish that the Aid Another DC was more complex. A flat DC 10 (or roll of ten with no specified target, which is a whole other problem) just doesn't work very well when dealing with the complexities in actual play. It is functional, but so easy that, in most cases, the bonus might as well be automatic.

This is precisely why the D&D 4e devs errata'd it so the aid another DC is 10 + half the aider's level. As I said in my post above, though, in my experience of epic-level play, adding half your level doesn't really make much difference. Aiding is still more or less automatic.

But in all honesty I hate that rule just as much because the difficulty in aiding a task goes up even if the difficulty of the task doesn't change one bit.

It does make some sense if you consider that your chance of contributing meaningfully to a task is related to the relative training and skill of the person you're aiding as well as the difficulty of the task.

As a for instance, let's say two buddies with little or no medical training find themselves having to care for an injured person. Pooling their limited knowledge is probably going to be quite useful, assuming they can successfully think of something useful to do.

But if one of those guys turns up alongside a trained paramedic, he can try and be useful, but it's highly unlikely that he's going to be able to offer any medical insights that will help the paramedic rather than hindering. 

But that's not how it works.

The way I read the 4e ruling is that the check is based on the level of the person who is attempting to aid another.  I has absolutely NOTHING to do with who you are aiding or why.  For a 1st-level 4er to aid another he needs to hit a 10 but for a 20th-level 4er to aid the exact same thing he needs to hit 20 which because of the +10 base to skills means he still needs the same roll.

Here's an expansion on your example:
Two buddies with no formal straining (trained skill) need to use Treat Injury on someone.  The first buddy (who's 1st-level) needs to hit a 10 to aid the second buddy no matter what that buddy's skill level is.  If that buddy is also 1st-level the primary really doesn't matter but if that second buddy is 10th level it makes sense to help him because of his instinctual +5 TI from experience.  Moving on to the next part I'll assume the second buddy is 10th-level.

Now these two buddies turn up alongside a trained paramedic (who is trained in TI).  Both buddies want to help the paramedic.  The first buddy still just needs to hit 10 to provide a +2 to the paramedic's check.  The second buddy, who is 10th-level, however needs to hit 15 to provide that same +2 bonus to the paramedic.  What's wrong with this?  What's wrong is that the paramedic is just a first level character with a +5 to his skill check so the second buddy would do just as well at treatment as the paramedic would do but is no better at "aiding" than the first buddy; here the best case would have the paramedic providing aid to the second buddy as he only needs to hit 10 (with his +5 bonus) to provide a +2 bonus to the second buddy's +5 bonus.

Increasing the difficult of aid another based on the aided (as opposed to aider) makes a lot more sense but to me it is basing the aid difficulty on the final target number that makes the most sense.  Using 4e's formula for aiding another you'll have a hard time explaining to me why a group of 1st-level characters can provide help as easily as a group of 20th-level characters when trying to do something that is "impossible" for even a single 20th-level character to do.
For the record, I struggled to get a straight answer out of the 4e crowd as to the rationale of the aid another errata back when it first came out: May 2010 - Aid Another errata.
"Patience is the calm acceptance that things can happen in a different order than the one you have in mind."

~ David G Allen

That's just bad. Seriously. That's a mechanic solely for the purpose of 'balance', which doesn't balance anything.

It might make more sense to say an Aid Another role's DC is whatever the base DC is, -5 or something. So, if a base Mechanics check is DC 20, then the Aid Another check could be DC 15, or something like that.

In all truth, The Aid Another DC is not really my concern, compared to the number of bonuses that can be added to the primary skill roll. In all truth, sometimes all that primary roll needs is a 'Hold this' kind of assist, which can be granted by any untrained NPC with a grasping appendage.
Winner of "You Make The... Contest #1: Starfighters"
For the record, I struggled to get a straight answer out of the 4e crowd as to the rationale of the aid another errata back when it first came out: May 2010 - Aid Another errata.

There's a reason many people never chnaged into 4e.  I'd almost say you get plenty of straight answers but they were all for a different question.

I greatly prefer my SWSE to be more simulationist than gamist but 4e appears to be set up with a completely gamist mindset.  I dare say some of that creeped in to SWSE when they printed that DC difficulties based on level tables in GoI and GaW; I may use them from time to time but higher level PCs are certainly going to be running into a lot more lower level and perhaps even "insignificant" things on the way. 

In all truth, The Aid Another DC is not really my concern, compared to the number of bonuses that can be added to the primary skill roll. In all truth, sometimes all that primary roll needs is a 'Hold this' kind of assist, which can be granted by any untrained NPC with a grasping appendage.

Well, you've got the support of the skill challenge rules in GoI that limit aid another bonuses to +10. I'd say go with that. Note that I'm suggesting limiting the bonus rather than the number of aiders, because if you limit it to 5, you could end up with 5 guys who all have Rapport and thus the bonus is much higher than +10. I suppose you could make it maximum of 5 aiders and a maximum of a +10 bonus if you really wanted to.

Speaking of Rapport, the table says it has "Wisdom 13" as a prerequisite, but the text doesn't have any prerequisite and there's nothing in the errata. Obviously text trumps table, but does anyone feel that Rapport ought to have Wis 13 as a prerequisite? Just curious.

There's a reason many people never chnaged into 4e.  I'd almost say you get plenty of straight answers but they were all for a different question.

Let me rephrase: I didn't get the answer I was looking for, which was a rationale for why it makes sense. That one poster really didn't understand what I was asking. The others did but didn't seem to see it as an issue. Ah well.

The only thing I really like about the 4e aid another errata is that if you fail, you impose a penalty rather than a bonus. I like that, but there's not much point in instituting something like that without also instituting a scaling DC.

I greatly prefer my SWSE to be more simulationist than gamist but 4e appears to be set up with a completely gamist mindset.  I dare say some of that creeped in to SWSE when they printed that DC difficulties based on level tables in GoI and GaW; I may use them from time to time but higher level PCs are certainly going to be running into a lot more lower level and perhaps even "insignificant" things on the way.

We're on the same page here. I still enjoy playing 4e but only because I've taken to thinking of it as more of a glorified boardgame than a bonafide RPG. But anyway ... as for the DCs per level tables, I feel like they did a good job explaining it in GoI (see the "Harder Checks at Higher Levels" sidebar on page 42; the gist of it is that it's more abstract, so while the base activity might have the same DC, you're adding in a bunch of other factors that contribute to increasing the overall DC for the activity).

There's no reason why you can't let higher level PCs go up against "easy" challenges. In fact, it's probably a good idea to do that from time to time to demonstrate character growth and to allow the players to let their characters be bad**** and so on. Not every encounter has to be a "fair fight" as it were. I don't bother with XP, which really frees me up to make things whatever difficulty I feel they ought to be given the circumstances. I don't have to worry about something being too easy and thus not giving the PCs enough XP or whatever.
"Patience is the calm acceptance that things can happen in a different order than the one you have in mind."

~ David G Allen

Let me rephrase: I didn't get the answer I was looking for, which was a rationale for why it makes sense. That one poster really didn't understand what I was asking. The others did but didn't seem to see it as an issue. Ah well.

The only thing I really like about the 4e aid another errata is that if you fail, you impose a penalty rather than a bonus. I like that, but there's not much point in instituting something like that without also instituting a scaling DC.



I can give you a rationale as to why it gets "harder", because your ability to aid somebody does get harder with any given task as the task becomes more difficult. Thus doing anything at level 30, even helping, should be harder then at level 1. Even if you provide the same amount of help, getting there is harder.

There's also the game balance thing, but that's really not an in universe reason.
That's a not a reasonable answer, because the mechanic makes the ability to help more difficult REGARDLESS of task difficulty. It's simply harder to help based on your level, which is a crock.

THAT is the problem with the mechanics of this. It does not take task difficulty into account.

HOWEVER... that all has little to do with Saga.
Winner of "You Make The... Contest #1: Starfighters"
Let me rephrase: I didn't get the answer I was looking for, which was a rationale for why it makes sense. That one poster really didn't understand what I was asking. The others did but didn't seem to see it as an issue. Ah well...


I can give you a rationale as to why it gets "harder", because your ability to aid somebody does get harder with any given task as the task becomes more difficult. Thus doing anything at level 30, even helping, should be harder then at level 1. Even if you provide the same amount of help, getting there is harder.

There's also the game balance thing, but that's really not an in universe reason.


Wrong.  Using the 4e rule aiding somebody in a task DOES NOT get any harder as the task becomes more difficult; it takes the same roll to aid someone trying a DC20 check as it does a DC 40 check.  Using the 4e rule the difficult of the task has absolutely no bearing on how hard it is to aid that task and that is the BIG problem with it.

There are two other things where Aid Another and 4e diverge greatly from SWSE.  In SAGA you don't do anything at level 30 because the game caps at level 20 and realistically you should probably be doing most of your playing well below that.  It also appears that the ability increases get closer together in 4e than they are in SAGA.

Having an aid another difficulty set by the actual task difficulty makes the most sense.  Following that the next most logical measure of difficulty would be the skill/level of the person who is being aided and will perform the task.  In all honesty I don't think having the AA difficulty being based on the aider's level makes much or any more sense than just using a fixed value when there is a chance of failing to aid for most of a character's progression.     
fwiw, I think capping Aid Another bonuses at +10 is extremely reasonable.  There's a limit to how much help others can give you to do anything, and that seems as good a limit as any other.  Even w/ the help of a bunch of buddies, I might not be able to make a free throw from 100 yards away, in the rain, w/ a blindfold on and so on.  Plus, the "aid" we are talking about here is the sort of aid that can be delivered oftne in about 6 seconds, so, again, capping it seems reasonable.  

It's also a simple enough rule to implement, which is a plus.

The 4E rules also strikes me as incredibly silly. 
Sign In to post comments