Please explain your position (if you can). Quoting myself at me, without further comment, is a) non-explanatory, b) arrogantly snide, c) rather insulting. If you have an actual explanation then please share it.
I thought it was clear, but I'll explain my point. I certainly had no intent to be insulting.
My contention is that if success is likely to be automatic, there is no point in rolling the dice - just tell them that they succeed and that if they cannot succeed regardless of what they roll, there is no point in rolling the dice - just tell them that they cannot aid the other person. (Or, alternately and my preference, use a DC that gives them approximately the same chance of success at all levels).
This began in response to Stalker0's defense of the DC10 despite its becoming automatic at moderately low levels. He defended this DC by saying "if I'm giving up my action to help my buddy, its nice to know its going to do something."
To which I responded: "Why bother with the roll then?"
The point I was attempting to make here is that if you like knowing that you are going to get something for giving up the action and if it is going to be easy at all levels and automatic at most levels, why not make it automatic at all levels and skip the actual role of the dice.
You jumped in with the argument: "Because circumstances can make it possible for a character to fail to provide assistance. ", combined with some additional information about what restrictions you place on when players can aid another. Although I am hesitant to ascribe motivation to others, I suspect that you misunderstood my point and thought I was arguing for Aid Another always being both possible and automatic, regardless of the circumstances. I was not.
I stated: "This doesn't explain "why roll" - it merely places restrictions on who can or cannot aid another. In fact, it may even been seen as providing support for not rolling aid another checks - you determine success or failure based on the circumstances and what the player is trying to do, not random chance."
My point here was that your post did not, imho, give a reason to roll. You were merely defining under what conditions aid another is or is not possible. But you aren't describing anything that would make a roll necessary. If the circumstances make failure likely -
then let the circumstances cause a failure. And if the characters do not meet your requirement ("the player describes how the character is participating") you have an automatic failure - again, no reason to roll the dice. And if the circumstances do not make success impossible and the players meet your requirement - nothing has changed the nearly automatic nature of the 10DC.
This was further elaborated in your response which described a laundry list of unlikely circumstances leading to the (questionable, imho) assertion that you would somehow add up to a -32 modifier - which is what would be necessary for the described +30 skill modifier to fail on an 11. Of course, the -32 was hyperbole and your intended point (as I read it) was that modifiers could change the 'nearly automatic' to 'uncertain'. But I don't see that as being likely under most circumstances.
The bottom line, imho - and this may be where we disagree - was that nothing you described seem likely to (except under very very rare circumstances) lead to failure at a DC10. Imposing a couple of -2 modifiers will not change the basic math past around 10th level. And imposing numerous -2 modifiers (enough to change the nearly automatic nature) is probably a bad idea anyway because you are essentially making the challenge too difficult for the party anyway.
(Note: I am making an assumption here. I am assuming that for a given action the modifiers on the roll to aid another are identical to the modifiers on the original action. If you are arbitrarily adding penalties to the aid another action that do not apply to the original action a) that is not generally a good idea imho and b) you are, in essence, raising the DC of the aid another action.)
Bottom Line: By my reading of your argument (and please do correct me here if I am failing to follow you), assuming a reasonable level set of penalties on the action, the aid another action will usually either be impossible or automatic at moderately low levels (and always automatic at high levels).
Which is why I asked: "And when that character has no chance of failure, what is the point of the roll?" (To which you responded "There isn't any") and "And if the circumstances make it impossible for the character to aid the other character, regardless of their modifier, what is the point of the roll? " (To which you also responded "There isn't any.").
I quoted this exchange because, in my mind, the admission that when success is automatic or when the circumstances you described made success impossible, 'there isn't any' point to the roll logically supported my assertion that your arguments "may even been seen as providing support for not rolling aid another checks".
In brief: When I asked "why roll" you responded that the reason to roll was because circumstances can lead to failure. I stated that this could be seen as an argument for not rolling, and I later saw your above response "There isn't any" as providing support that assertion as well.
I hope I have explained my position to your satisfaction and my apologies to the other readers if the length of the post made your eyes start bleeding....
Carl
