Skill checks and Aid Another

[KarinsDad]

The only problem with your argument is that you have not described different mechanics. You have described different modifiers for the same mechanic. The mechanic is the same in virtually every case: an opposed or static d20 roll.

If you say so. But you are focusing merely on one note out of the several I posted. Why is that? Could it be that the other notes point out sharper differences?


Personally, I think a BAB + Str + Size modifier opposed roll is different than an opposed Str roll is different than an opposed attack roll is different than an opposed Str vs. Str or Dex. For people not familiar with the game, these are all different and about the only similar things in the Special Attacks. You have to roll a D20. Yes, but is it an opposed ability roll or an opposed attack roll? I don't remember.

I think that some of them touch you (like Bull Rush), but do not require a touch attack nor do they allow you to use your Dex to avoid is a different mechanic than ones that do.

I think if the order in which events occur is different, then they are different. It means that a DM either has to remember the difference, or he has to look it up.

I think that if there are special rules for melee weapons versus non-melee weapons and that each Special Attack has it's own different rules for these, then they are different.


Now, I posted the different things you need to do and the order for just a few of the Special Attacks.

The fact that you cannot conceed that they do indeed have different orders, different things which happen on AoOs and touch attacks, and entire series of different rules means that you are ignoring the evidence. Grapple alone has almost 2 entire pages of rules.

Almost two pages for one attack.

That clearly indicates that the rules for Grapple are very different than the rules for any of the other Special Attacks.

Otherwise, they would have merely needed a few sentences.


But according to you, Grapple is handled virtually identical to Bull Rush.

What modifiers are applied may change, but that's just adding whole numbers. If you have a problem adding whole numbers, you shouldn't be playing D&D to begin with, and I have no sympathy for you.

Well, attacking someone is the last resort of a losing position. You did that a lot in this thread. That appears to be your modus operandi.

Sorry you lost. Better luck next time.

 

[Twowolves]

I do not see anywhere StormRaven has lost anything. He's 100% correct, that all the "mechanics" are the same, a d20 roll, higher the better. An example of different "mechanics" would be 1st ed thief skills (d%) vs saving throws (d20 high), or 2nd ed attack rolls (d20 high) vs non-weapon proficiency rolls (d20 low).

Changing the order of touch attacks or attacks of opportunity or the modifiers or target numbers or any of that are just semantics to your supposed arguement. All of those "confusing" modifiers you lament so were extrapolated from the same basic unifying concept, a d20 high roll. The explanations are different because each special attack is different by their very nature. If you can't see that disarming someone with a sword and wrestling them to the ground are two very different things, each with different levels of risk to the attacker and with different degrees of complexity, then you are being argumentative out of spite. You have yet to give an example of what YOU think a good "consistant mechanic" is, other than perhaps "roll d20, beat a target number". Oh wait, that's what the mechanic already is.

 

[LostSoul]

But, this is a rules forum. That means that we can also talk about poorly designed rules and why we do not like them. Not just what they are or how to interpret them.

Back to Aid Another...

I think it is a well-designed rule. You can make a check, DC 10, and give the other guy a +2.

It lets you do something even if you aren't the star of the team.

It's simple.

It allows characters to group together and overcome a high DC that they might not otherwise have been able to overcome.


I don't think applying real-world logic to the rule to show that it's poorly designed is an applicable critique. If that's what you want, you're going to see a lot of the rules in D&D that are poorly designed. And it seems that it comes down to DM fiat as to whether the rule works or not.

 

[KarinsDad]

I do not see anywhere StormRaven has lost anything. He's 100% correct, that all the "mechanics" are the same, a d20 roll, higher the better. An example of different "mechanics" would be 1st ed thief skills (d%) vs saving throws (d20 high), or 2nd ed attack rolls (d20 high) vs non-weapon proficiency rolls (d20 low).

Changing the order of touch attacks or attacks of opportunity or the modifiers or target numbers or any of that are just semantics to your supposed arguement. All of those "confusing" modifiers you lament so were extrapolated from the same basic unifying concept, a d20 high roll. The explanations are different because each special attack is different by their very nature. If you can't see that disarming someone with a sword and wrestling them to the ground are two very different things, each with different levels of risk to the attacker and with different degrees of complexity, then you are being argumentative out of spite. You have yet to give an example of what YOU think a good "consistant mechanic" is, other than perhaps "roll d20, beat a target number". Oh wait, that's what the mechanic already is.

You would be correct if every one of the Special Abilities had a touch attack. If every one of them had an Attack of Opportunity. If every one of them allowed the defender to defend in the same way (some allow Dex, some do not, some allow avoidance completely).

Special Attacks do not need touch attacks. They do not need Attacks of Opportunity.

Every one of them could be an opposed attack roll maybe with a few modifiers based on different degrees of difficulty. Just like skills are a single D20 roll with modifiers with very few rules about AoOs, touch attacks, etc.

But instead, they added in a plethora of rules where each Special Attack requires that you handle the sequence and results differently.


Yes, from your "yuck yuck, every one of them rolls a D20" simplistic view of the world, yes, most of them use a D20.

Exactly how does that make them the same?


Let me put it another way. If you had to write a computer program for skills, you would have: one methd for roll, modifiers, and DCs, and another for opposed rolls and modifers. Two simple methods where the data (i.e. modifiers) drives the results.

If you had to write a computer program for special attacks, you would have boatloads of methods written to handle this, that, or the other special case rule.

 

[KarinsDad]

Back to Aid Another...

I think it is a well-designed rule. You can make a check, DC 10, and give the other guy a +2.

It lets you do something even if you aren't the star of the team.

It's simple.

A much better rule is:

First PC rolls skill. Second PC rolls skill. If the second total is higher than the first, you get to average them.

This minimizes some of the totally arbitrary randomness of rolling D20s with skills, just like Taking 10 and Taking 20 does. And, the second PC doesn't always help, just because he has +9 in his skill. And, this rule has all of the advantages you mentioned above concerning the core rule.


The concept that you can "always help" with a +9 to your roll (assuming you have the skill to make the DC), regardless of other factors such how good you are compared to how good the main skill user is, makes this a ok mechanics-wise rule (i.e. easy to do), but a lousy common sense type rule.

It allows characters to group together and overcome a high DC that they might not otherwise have been able to overcome.

Actually, this is not always correct:

"In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results you can’t aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn’t achieve alone."

In other words, the Fighter cannot Aid Another the Rogue to Find Traps on complex traps, even though the Fighter has the Search skill.

 

[LostSoul]

A much better rule is:

First PC rolls skill. Second PC rolls skill. If the second total is higher than the first, you get to average them.

You know, that is a good rule. It would also allow two characters with the same schtick to shine at the same time. (Like, say a Dwarven Ranger with high Search and a Rogue looking for traps in a stone dungeon.) You'd probably want the PC with lower skill to roll first.

How they narrate it should be up to them (in my opinion). Each group can come up with a style that works for them. That is, some groups might need the narration of the Aid Another action to be believable, and others might just handwave it. Either way.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

A much better rule is:

First PC rolls skill. Second PC rolls skill. If the second total is higher than the first, you get to average them.

You know, that is a good rule.

No, it isn't.

You'd probably want the PC with lower skill to roll first.

And this is why. Using KarinsDad's rule, the master craftsman would "assist" his apprentice, rather than the other way around--and they'd achieve a worse result together than they would if the master simply did the work by himself.

The beauty of the Aid Another action is that it allows a less-skilled assistant to still be helpful, with the proviso that if the task would be completely beyond his capability to achieve alone, he can't offer any useful help. It's common-sensical and easy to apply. KarinsDad's objections to the contrary are without merit. (Wow! I managed to say it politely! This "moderated forum" thing isn't as bad as I used to think.)

 

[Storm Raven]

A much better rule is:

First PC rolls skill. Second PC rolls skill. If the second total is higher than the first, you get to average them.

No, it is a terrible rule. Why? Because it essentially makes Aid Another an entirely losing proposition. The lower skilled character is more likely to hinder the higher skilled character by "helping" him using this rule. A high skilled character is always better off going it alone on a skill check using this "better rule".

 

[Storm Raven]

If you say so. But you are focusing merely on one note out of the several I posted. Why is that? Could it be that the other notes point out sharper differences?

I focused on all of your "notes", since all of them merely create modifiers to a single mechanic.

Personally, I think a BAB + Str + Size modifier opposed roll is different than an opposed Str roll is different than an opposed attack roll is different than an opposed Str vs. Str or Dex. For people not familiar with the game, these are all different and about the only similar things in the Special Attacks. You have to roll a D20. Yes, but is it an opposed ability roll or an opposed attack roll? I don't remember.

Are they opposed d20 rolls? Yes. Everything else is window dressing. If you can't understand "roll opposed d20s and add some modifiers" you have more problems than this thread can address. The mechanic is very simple: roll a d20, add modifiers, beat a target DC (either ststic or opposed). Everything you cite is just modifiers to that mechanic.

I think that some of them touch you (like Bull Rush), but do not require a touch attack nor do they allow you to use your Dex to avoid is a different mechanic than ones that do.

The mechanic remains:

Bull Rush: move, followed by an opposed d20 roll.

The fact that you cannot conceed that they do indeed have different orders, different things which happen on AoOs and touch attacks, and entire series of different rules means that you are ignoring the evidence. Grapple alone has almost 2 entire pages of rules.

And those two pages of rules boil down to (1) touch attack, (2) opposed d20 roll. Everything else is window dressing. The fact that you think people have such a hard time wrapping their minds around such a simple mechanic shows me how little you think of the people you game with.

 

[KarinsDad]

No, it is a terrible rule. Why? Because it essentially makes Aid Another an entirely losing proposition. The lower skilled character is more likely to hinder the higher skilled character by "helping" him using this rule. A high skilled character is always better off going it alone on a skill check using this "better rule".

You misread what I wrote. The averaging only occurs if the helping character totals better than the main character.

Example:

PC1 has +8, PC2 has +5

In core system, if PC1 is the main skill user and he rolls a 1 and PC2 rolls a 15, you get a total of 11 (1 +8 +2).

In my system, you get a total of 14 (1+8+5+15 /2).


Granted, this does not allow the scenario of PC1 having +13 in the skill and PC2 having +2 and PC1 getting a result of 35 (13 + 20 +2) like with the core rule. But, I do not think that should happen anyway. You should not be able to get beyond your own best skill level because someone who is an incompetent is helping you.

That's whats wrong with the core rule. You can get beyond your own best ability because you have Joe Incompetent help you. That's one reason that it is a poorly designed rule (another is due to the fact taht +9 in the skill always helps, regardless of situation).


This also means that characters who have similar skill levels help often and sometimes a lot whereas characters who just don't know what the heck they are doing don't. That's like real life, unlike the core rule.