Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5059175" data-attributes="member: 2011">So you are claiming that Aid Another can only be done in combat?I can Aid Another someone else to pick a lock in combat, but not out of combat? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />Teleportation is in the combat section. Do the line of sight and line of effect rules not apply out of combat as well as in combat? Or are you claiming that teleportation cannot be done out of combat?Your position here is totally unsupportable.The phrase "in some situations" is vague and not a rule. It could mean anything. It could mean, like you claim, when the DM allows it. It could mean when the PCs are standing next to each other. It could mean anything. You cannot use a vague phrase to force a given interpretation.This is called inference. You are inferring something from a sentence where the sentence is vague and not explict.Sorry, that's not a rule.Happens every day in real life. Someone not knowledgeable about cars says "What if you clean out the carburetor?" and even though the car does not even have a carburetor, it triggers a thought in the mind of the auto expert to clean out something else.It gives the expert a bonus.Secondary skills have nothing to do with gaining a +2 bonus. Quote the rule.There are two bonuses possible in the skill check section of the rules.1) DM's Friend in the Running a Skill Challenge section.2) +2 in the Group Skill check section.Your logic is flawed. A DM could allow both #1 and #2 here. They are not mutually exclusive like via your theory.Both are allowed. The update clearly indicates that not only is the second one allowed for non-group skill skill challenges, but that there is even a limit of one or two of them.This does not state: consider limiting the number to zero. It states, consider limiting the number to one or two. For your interpretation to even be close to valid, the update would have to have the DM limit assistance to zero to disallow assistance. Sure, the DM can do whatever he wants and ignore this rule, but this is the rule. You have no counter rule to it.Yes, via the rules, the players are ENTITLED to use group skill check limited to a max of one or two in a skill challenge. And yes, the DM can overrule that for certain circumstances.It cannot be used where the PCs cannot cooperate. For example, chasing a Thief down an alleyway and using Acrobatics to get over a wall cannot use the assist if the PC ally is far away. He can typically (unless the DM is a rat bastard) use the assist if the PC ally is next to the wall (i.e. he gives the other PC a boost).The DM is final arbitrator of this, but the general rule still stands. Group Skill is allowed in skill challenges, even if the skill is not considered a Group Skill skill. The update clearly spells this out.It is at the DMs discretion. Every aspect of the game is. If I say something stupid in a skill challenge and rolled a 20 on the dice for Diplomacy, the DM can still call that a failure.Your entire POV hinges on a +2 example for a secondary skill that is explained via the DM's Friend text. However, secondary skills have nothing to do with this conversation. They don't give +2 bonuses. You have no explicit rules to support your POV and hence, nobody else can be expected to intuit that POV from the rules. This is called interpretation (and a very off the wall one at that), but it is not rules.And for the rest of this discussion, I will not use the term Aid Another. It really is that, but I'll use the term Group Skill.</blockquote>

Verification