D&D 3E/3.5 Good Cop/Bad Cop (skills use in 3.5 Ed)

[Pax]

Except it says the opposite in the rule: "You can help another character achieve success on his or her skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort." PHB 3.5 pg. 65-66.

Note that your quote says "same kind of skill check", not "a check with the same skill". The two statements ar enot precisely the same. IMO, that's where the purview of the DM as arbiter of the rules comes in.

You can house rule it that way, but currently the rules would not permit a character to use one craft skill in an aid-another attempt for a different craft skill. Synergy bonus? Sure. But not an aid another.

The rules do not forbid it. The two are both the same "kind" of skill check (in this case, using Craft skills to manufacture something), which satisfies the RAW. Just like Diplomacy and Intimidate are both reaction/additude changing skills.

Again, that sounds like a fine house rule for your game, but it isn't in the rules that way. You can only aid another with the same skill.

And that is a fine houserule for your campaign, but the rules don't say "the same skill", they say "the same kind of skill check".

Pendragon: Actually, I did point out that that was being very generous with bonusses. I don't think a +2 is that big a deal, especially now that the Skill Focus feat gives a +3 modifier to a single skill.

More realistically, the situation I described above would IMO probably be worth a +8. Maybe a +10, if the party had a reputation for actually torturing prisoners (in which case, they're probably not the heroes, of course). And it assumes they have hours, even a day or more, in which to question their prisoner(s).

 

[Mistwell]

Now you are just arguing semantics to get around the rules as written. Same kind of skill means same skill in this context. They didn't say "same skill" because they needed to make it clear it was someone else making the skill check, not that the skill was different. "kind of" is referring to the skill of the main PC, as opposed to the skill of the aiding PC.

As for things being forbidden by the rules..NOTHING is forbidden by the rules, due to Rule 0. However, if you are looking for the rules as written, I think it is clear as day that aid another is meant to use the same skill, not a different skill that feels sorta kinda like that skill. And, I pretty rarely claim any rule is clear as day, due to my lawyer training, so you can feel pretty confident that, if I think it's clear as day, it probably is.

 

[Bauglir]

I agree with Pax.

It says same kind of skill. If it meant the same skill, it would have said the same skill, and not the same kind of skill.

How on earth can the inclusion of the words 'kind of' have any implication on who is making the skill check anyway?

 

[ashockney]

So, here's what happened...

In the game, here's what actually broke down. I was looking to see if I went a little overboard, and it appears I may have. Nonetheless, it was fun! The players really liked it, too.

So, they said we're doing a good cop, bad cop routine.

I said, ok, who's going first. It was the diplomat. He made his DC15 check (they were 8th level and had around a +10 to these skills).

Next, the intimidator was on. He got "aided" by the barbarian successfully. He rolled a Nat 20. Which I know doesn't mean anything when it comes to skills, but I thought. Wow, isn't that cool. So, I said, go for it! You've convinced him of the error of his ways, and now he wants to lead you right into the "boss's lair" (but not into danger himself).

The party (typically a hack 'n slashing crew) was amazed at their actual USE of SKILLS. And the plot device did move the party right along, around another "low level" encounter, and past several required tracking checks and possibly divination spells to locate the boss's lair.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Pendragon: Actually, I did point out that that was being very generous with bonusses.

Fair enough.

Next, the intimidator was on. He got "aided" by the barbarian successfully. He rolled a Nat 20. Which I know doesn't mean anything when it comes to skills, but I thought. Wow, isn't that cool. So, I said, go for it! You've convinced him of the error of his ways, and now he wants to lead you right into the "boss's lair" (but not into danger himself).

I've been guilty of the Natural 20 as well. I have a fighter who is wooing a particular NPC. He met her at a ball, and when she gave him her dance card, he decided to fill the entire thing with his name. He had only 1 or 2 ranks in Perform (Dance)--cross-class, and taken because he'd danced with her once before, and failed miserably.

Player has to leave, and his last action is to throw the die to see how well the PC's dancing turns out....natural 20.

The dancing would have been good regardless, but he gained at least a +10 circumstance bonus because of the perfect timing.

 

[mikebr99]

Weildskill (mof:134) - touch, 1 min/lvl, Subject gains +10 competence bonus to a skill.

YMMV


Mike

 

[Mistwell]

I agree with Pax.

It says same kind of skill. If it meant the same skill, it would have said the same skill, and not the same kind of skill.

How on earth can the inclusion of the words 'kind of' have any implication on who is making the skill check anyway?

Can you see the difference between :"Tim has a jacket just like yours, Jeff. In fact, yours is the same jacket" (implying you swiped Tim's Jacket), and "Tim has a jacket just like yours, Jeff. In fact, yours is the same kind of jacket" (Implying yours is the exact same brand/color/size as Tim's jacket, but not actually Tim's jacket)?

"kind of" still refers to Tim's jacket. It just makes sure the reader doesn't think Jeff swiped Tim's jacket.

In the same manner, "kind of" in the aid another rules is making sure the reader knows it is two different people, using two different bonuses, concerning the same skill. Without the word "kind of" you might think you use the exact same skill check as the primary skill user (ie using their ranks and bonuses). You don't use the same skill of the primary skill user, you use the same KIND OF skill. The skill has the same name, but it is not their skill, but yours, with your own ranks and bonuses and such.

It's funny, but I think WOTC put the words "kind of" in the aid another description to REDUCE confusion, making sure you don't think you can roll with someone elses ranks and bonuses, but instead the result seems to be an entirely different confusion. This is why examples should always be put in the rules. Stargate SG-1 from AEG did a good job of putting examples in there...

 

[Bauglir]

Aha now I see where you're coming from. I guess they could mean that, but Pax's interpretation reads a bit better for me, plus it just sort of makes sense I think that you could aid an armourcrafter with craft:metalworking or other similar skills. YMMV

Merry Xmas

 

[Pax]

[...] "kind of" still refers to Tim's jacket. It just makes sure the reader doesn't think Jeff swiped Tim's jacket.

Yes, indeed. Tim (e.g.) has a black London Fog trenchcoat, and Jeff has a khaki London Fog trenchcoat. Same kind, even the same brand, but not identical.