Skill checks and Aid Another

[Twowolves]

Which is why if you only get one shot at something (disable device for example), those with the best odds should try, aided by another if possible. If you get more than one try (like a search check) then everyone should get their separate rolls, because the more times you get to roll the dice, the better your odds at success.

What it boils down to here is simplicity: if conditions are favorable, you get +2 on your check. Aiding someone else should usually create a favorable condition, (thus a +2 bonus) or sometimes not (thus a simple check vs DC 10 to provide the bonus). Earlier you were complaining about special attacks being so complex, but here, aid another isn't complex enough for you, so you add in an "if-then" type of roll that doesn't really help very often, and never more than what could have been accomplished by having multiple characters try a task multiple times.

 

[LostSoul]

There is never a circumstance under which they would be better off working together.

Aren't you also arguing against the standard use of Aid Another?

 

[KarinsDad]

Of course, none of this matters, because of the second quote I provided. Or did you ignore that because it doesn't fit your version of the rules?

Ah yes.

RAW does not matter unless SR says it does. SR cannot be wrong about you not being able to do an Aid Another if your skill total is not high enough.

Which "second quote" are you referring to and how does it invalidate the RAW rule I posted and how does that make your inaccurate statement accurate?

 

[KarinsDad]

Which is why if you only get one shot at something (disable device for example), those with the best odds should try, aided by another if possible. If you get more than one try (like a search check) then everyone should get their separate rolls, because the more times you get to roll the dice, the better your odds at success.

Assuming of course that the DC is low enough for the second option to work.

What it boils down to here is simplicity: if conditions are favorable, you get +2 on your check. Aiding someone else should usually create a favorable condition, (thus a +2 bonus) or sometimes not (thus a simple check vs DC 10 to provide the bonus). Earlier you were complaining about special attacks being so complex, but here, aid another isn't complex enough for you, so you add in an "if-then" type of roll that doesn't really help very often, and never more than what could have been accomplished by having multiple characters try a task multiple times.

You are correct. Adding half of the difference is more complex than adding 2 if a roll is made. Not significantly more complex, but somewhat.

What I find interesting is that Aid Another in combat is nearly a shoe in. In other words, since BAB increases automatically (you don't have to purchase it with skill points) and most PCs have some level of combat skill, Aid Another in combat almost always works, especially once you get out of low levels.

Why even bother to have the roll if many characters auto-make it by level 5?

 

[KarinsDad]

Wrong.

Adam (Search +9) rolls a 4. His result is a 13.

Bob (Search +2) rolls a 17. His result is a 19.

If they were working together (Adam primary, Bob aiding), the result would be a 16.

If they were working seperately, the result would be a 19.

Now, where I come from a 16 is a worse result than a 19. Maybe math works different in your reality.

There is never a circumstance under which they would be better off working together.

I didn't say they were.

I was responding directly to your statement:

"The end result of working cooperatively is at best, equal to working alone, and possibly worse."

This is an inaccurate statement.


Adam (Search +9) rolls a 4. His result is a 13.

Bob (Search +2) rolls a 17. His result is a 19.

If they were working together (Adam primary, Bob aiding), the result would be a 16.

Adam working alone yields 13. Adam working cooperately yields 16.

The result is never lower than what Adam could do ALONE. For example, Adam disarming a trap which might go off versus Adam and Bob cooperatively disarming a trap which might go off.


I was not talking about working separately. I was comparing it specifically to working alone and directly refuting your statement about working alone having a possible worse result.

If you meant that it could be a worse result than working separately, then you should have said that. That would have been a correct statement. But, that is not what you wrote.


Your example here is a fine one of them working separately at the same task. It is not an example comparing one of them working alone versus both of them working cooperatively and that was what I was responding to.

 

[Artoomis]

...Why would Bob ever choose to Aid Another? Look at it this way, using the rule variant, can you give me a circumstance in which Bob and Adam are better off working together?

Sure. Any time only one check is going to be used. If everyone can check and take the highest roll, then there is not much point in the the standard Aid Another either, right?

Except that one can Aid Another on a DC 10, so it's worth it when you can help but not get as high a score. With this alternate system you might not be able to help at all if your score is really low, which is just what Karin's Dad wants, right? Also, if your score is high, you might get to help much more than the standard Aid Another. Again, jut what Karin;s Dad wants, right?

This simple system seems to be misunderstood quite a bit. In any case, this is CLEARLY House Rules and this discussion really should be taken over there.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure. Any time only one check is going to be used. If everyone can check and take the highest roll, then there is not much point in the the standard Aid Another either, right?

Except that one can Aid Another on a DC 10, so it's worth it when you can help but not get as high a score. With this alternate system you might not be able to help at all if your score is really low, which is just what Karin's Dad wants, right? Also, if your score is high, you might get to help much more than the standard Aid Another. Again, jut what Karin;s Dad wants, right?

This simple system seems to be misunderstood quite a bit. In any case, this is CLEARLY House Rules and this discussion really should be taken over there.

In some cases, it is purposely being misunderstood.

And agreed, this is a house rule and does not belong here. I was just using it to illustrate a point until it blew out of all reasonable proportions.

 

[Storm Raven]

Aren't you also arguing against the standard use of Aid Another?

Nope. I think KD's proposed rule is so silly that I find it amusing that it is even being discussed.

 

[Storm Raven]

Which "second quote" are you referring to and how does it invalidate the RAW rule I posted and how does that make your inaccurate statement accurate?

I quoted two areas of text in my initial post. One is the one you cited (which, by the way, I said "even if the urchin could help the scholar, is it that big a deal", pointing out thast your entire objection to the idea of the urchin helping is an unrealistic one). I also quoted the rule that "in some circumstances assistance would not be beneficial", making it a judgment call as to whether the urchin could help the scholar without the need to have silly convoluted and poorly designed house rules.

 

[Storm Raven]

I didn't say they were.

I was responding directly to your statement:

"The end result of working cooperatively is at best, equal to working alone, and possibly worse."

This is an inaccurate statement.

No, it is a completely accurate statement, and your example just proves that.

Adam (Search +9) rolls a 4. His result is a 13.

Bob (Search +2) rolls a 17. His result is a 19.

If they were working together (Adam primary, Bob aiding), the result would be a 16.

Adam working alone yields 13. Adam working cooperately yields 16.

The result is never lower than what Adam could do ALONE. For example, Adam disarming a trap which might go off versus Adam and Bob cooperatively disarming a trap which might go off.

And yet, if they had been working alone, Bob would have gotten a 19. That is higher than the cooperative result of 16. Your system means that their highest possible result is either (1) Adam's result on his own, if Bob has a lower result than Adam, or (b) a result lower than Bob's if Bob's roll is higher than Adam's. There is never a circumstance in which they get a better result working together than they could have by working alone.

I was not talking about working separately. I was comparing it specifically to working alone and directly refuting your statement about working alone having a possible worse result.

And yet, you proved my statement accurate with your example. Bob and Adam, each working alone, get a best result of 19. Working together, they get a result of 16. 19 is better than 16 in every reality except the one you apparently inhabit.

What you think you are talking about is not relevant. The Aid Another action has to be evaluated in conjunction with the alternatives, and those alternatives include solo skill checks. Your system, as I said in my completely accurate statement, gives a result that is always at best equal to, or worse than, the result that could be achived by two characters working alone.

If you meant that it could be a worse result than working separately, then you should have said that. That would have been a correct statement. But, that is not what you wrote.

Well gosh, then I guess I should have said:

"The end result of working cooperatively is at best, equal to working alone, and possibly worse."

Oh wait, I did.