Skill checks and Aid Another

[Storm Raven]

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

In which case, why dosen't the "helping" character just do it himself? How is this more useful than just having two characters make independent rolls and seeing who does better?

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.

So, master craftsmen who have less skilled assistants are just wasting their time? Head chefs with subordinate assistants are just being silly? People are never better when they work in groups than they could be when they work alone? Getting help never lets you exceed the performance you could achive when going it alone?

Your rule, and your ideas about the value of teamwork are so silly that they don't even merit real consideration.

 

[Twowolves]

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.

I'm glad you provided an example of what you think is a good rule. It shows that you are indeed arguing for the sake of the arguement. This example of a "better rule" is in fact SO much worse, ill concieved, and useless as to be laughable. In your "improvement", the person who would have rolled better would always be dragged down by the averaging of the rolls. Player A rolls a 22, Player B rolls a 26, the net result being a 24. While that would seem like "help" to Player A, it's worse than what Player B gets on his own anyway. It is in every way worse than just having each character roll his check separately and hope for the best. With this rule, you'd have to change the name from "aid another" to "get-in-the-way-and-muck up another".

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).

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.

Not every maneuver requires a touch attack, because you have to do something more than lay your hands on them. Not all of them require you to drop your defenses enough to allow an attack of opportunity. Making them all opposed attack rolls makes zero sense when you have a 20th level halfling rogue with a 12 strength try to bull rush a, well a bull. High combat skill should not let you shove livestock around!

Each Special Attack requires you to handle the sequences and results differently, with different modifiers and different results because the are SPECIAL attacks, needing SPECIAL rules to handle them. Says so right in the title.

It sounds to me you'd be much happier playing Savage Worlds or C&C. Or just sitting in a corner seeing who can roll highest on a d20.

 

[Twowolves]

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).

You are assuming that a character who puts one of their few skill points into gaining a single rank in a skill is an incompetant, when the rules specifically say otherwise. Most people in the game setting get by without ranks in things they do every day, by Taking 10 or with unskilled checks. The character with even a single rank in a skill has gone beyond what most are capable of doing, have a basic training and understanding of what they are doing. What they lack is experience. If someone was truely "incompetant", then they are incapable of using the "aid another" action in the first place. If they have even a single rank in the skill, then they are not "incompetant". Even the worst mechanic can help the best mechanic by going to the toolbox. If he brings the wrong tool, well at least he hasn't brought the average down by trying. Sheesh.

 

[Artoomis]

This is really House Rule territory, but I'll weigh in anyway.

The proposed averaging rule is NOT such a terrible thing - I think it is being misunderstood.

The higher skill person rolls first to attempt the task (as they would today with "aid another"). The lower skill person attempts to help. Instead of succeding on a "10," he only succeeds if he rolls higher than the first character, who then gets to add 1/2 the difference.

The higher skill person is NEVER "brought down" by the averaging. Instead, they sometime don't get helked at all, and sometimes might get better help than the "aid another."

It solves the problem of a novice being able to help an expert, if you even see that as a prblem in the first place.

I don't especially like it as it is more difficult (just a bit) to use than a simple DC 10.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

I suspect you do not understand my method because this is not correct.

Post an example of how this would occur. With my system, you still have two rolls. The apprentice only assists the master if he rolls real good.

 

[KarinsDad]

You are assuming that a character who puts one of their few skill points into gaining a single rank in a skill is an incompetant, when the rules specifically say otherwise. Most people in the game setting get by without ranks in things they do every day, by Taking 10 or with unskilled checks. The character with even a single rank in a skill has gone beyond what most are capable of doing, have a basic training and understanding of what they are doing. What they lack is experience. If someone was truely "incompetant", then they are incapable of using the "aid another" action in the first place. If they have even a single rank in the skill, then they are not "incompetant". Even the worst mechanic can help the best mechanic by going to the toolbox. If he brings the wrong tool, well at least he hasn't brought the average down by trying. Sheesh.

Your opinion would have more weight if you learned how to read.

 

[LostSoul]

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 way I understood it, both characters were doing the task, and one roll was being used for success/failure.

KD, a +9 can still fail, depending on the situation if the DM throws in some circumstance penalties.

 

[KarinsDad]

In which case, why dosen't the "helping" character just do it himself? How is this more useful than just having two characters make independent rolls and seeing who does better?

That would be a different house rule. Not necessarily a bad one either. We were not discussing that previously.

So, master craftsmen who have less skilled assistants are just wasting their time? Head chefs with subordinate assistants are just being silly? People are never better when they work in groups than they could be when they work alone? Getting help never lets you exceed the performance you could achive when going it alone?

You are talking like someone who has no clue what he is talking about. In a master / apprentice situation, you do not typically have "Aid Another".

The master does the difficult / finely detailed stuff. The apprentice does the grunt work.

Head chefs let their assistants do the grunt work of most of the cooking while they do the finesse work of putting finishing touches on plates, preparing menus, determining how much of each spice is used, etc.

It's obvious that you never worked in a nice restaurant.

Your rule, and your ideas about the value of teamwork are so silly that they don't even merit real consideration.

Yet again, when in doubt, attack.

You seem incapable of having a civilized discussion.

Why is that SR?

 

[Storm Raven]

This is really House Rule territory, but I'll weigh in anyway.

The proposed averaging rule is NOT such a terrible thing - I think it is being misunderstood.

The higher skill person rolls first to attempt the task (as they would today with "aid another"). The lower skill person attempts to help. Instead of succeding on a "10," he only succeeds if he rolls higher than the first character, who then gets to add 1/2 the difference.

But then why don't both characters just make independent rolls? They would be better off doing so every time.

Adam (+10 ranks in Search) rolls, he rolls a 3, for a total Search check of 13.

Bob (+2 ranks in Search) rolls to aid Adam, he rolls a 17, for a total of 19.

Because of the variant version of Aid Another, the total result is a (13 + 19)/2 = 16.

If they had just rolled independently to Search, then Bob would have gotten a 19.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The higher skill person rolls first to attempt the task (as they would today with "aid another").

Actually, they don't. The Aid Another rolls happen first.