Take 20 on Aid Another?

[StreamOfTheSky]

You can't even take 10 by RAW, why would you be able to take 20?

That said, until someone pointed out the rule against taking 10 to aid another to me the other week, I had been unwittingly playing it wrong for years and I don't think it hurt the game any. So on the "would you houserule it?" front...I'd allow taking 10 on aid another, but still not take 20. If you can't make DC 10 on a roll of 10...you have no business trying to assist.

 

[Jimlock]

I'll repeat my self...

I don't care about the name of it... "take 20" or not...


What I'm saying is this:
Giving a +2 bonus to a guy being helped by another to complete a task with repeated attempts and without risk of failure is only natural.

 

[airwalkrr]

The Take 20 rule was included just so a player who had plenty of time to complete a task, wasn't in a rush, and didn't suffer a penalty for failure didn't have to literally keep rolling dice until he got the highest possible roll. The statistical theory is that if you roll at least 20 times on a d20 you have good odds of rolling at least one natural 20. However, the Take 20 rule isn't a definition of the statistical odds of rolling a 20. In other words, you don't actually assume that when you take 20 that you rolled twenty times under some hypothetically perfectly balanced conditions that automatically granted exactly one result of 20. If you did, then the Take 20 rule flies in the face of statistical probability because even if you roll a d20 twenty times there is still a fairly good chance of rolling no 20s. So the Take 20 rule is only a simplification of the statistical probabilities.

Because we are talking about a simplification of statistics that does away with dice in a situation where a player has plenty of time and is by definition NOT actually rolling dice, I don't see why the same case couldn't apply to aid another. Just because it doesn't allow taking 10 doesn't mean it couldn't allow take 20.

 

[Arrowhawk]

I'll repeat my self...

I don't care about the name of it... "take 20" or not...


What I'm saying is this:
Giving a +2 bonus to a guy being helped by another to complete a task with repeated attempts and without risk of failure is only natural.

So this is not what the OP is asking, agreed?

Here's what the SRD says on the +2 Aid Another..

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. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you are helping gets a +2 bonus to his or her check, as per the rule for favorable conditions. (You can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character’s help won’t be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once.​

So as SoS points out, there isn't even a Take 10 for the +2 bonus. Both people roll. If you both need a 20, and it's a task that you can retry, then if i were to allow a Take 20...it would have to be a Take 400 if both needed a 20.

EDIT:
Because I like you Jim, I'll give you a Take 200 on the +2 Aid Another if you don't want to roll. That's 50% off the Take 400. This offer expires by noon tomorrow.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Because we are talking about a simplification of statistics that does away with dice in a situation where a player has plenty of time and is by definition NOT actually rolling dice, I don't see why the same case couldn't apply to aid another. Just because it doesn't allow taking 10 doesn't mean it couldn't allow take 20.

Even if it is a simplification of the probabilities, it still has to be consistent. Reread what Greenfield posted. What you're attempting to do is, under the simplification, 20 times more difficult than what you are attempting alone. Simple math means you multiply those simplifications together and it takes you 400 rolls to simulate getting two 20's at the same time. That "same time" requirement is what makes it so much more difficult.

Arguing that it should only take you 20 rolls for two people to roll a 20 is to fail to understand the underlying math involved.

But hey, I'll let Greenfield take it from here...he staked this claim first.

 

[airwalkrr]

I disagree with the assertion that taking 20 is twenty times more difficult. The task has the same difficulty whether you take 20 or not. The DC is unchanged.

And I am not arguing that it takes twenty rolls for two people to roll a 20 at once because I don't believe that the Taking 20 rule follows the assumption that any rolling is taking place at all. It simply follows the assumption that you are taking your time. As I said, if we were really talking about literally rolling until you received a 20, it might take longer or less time than taking 20. So the Taking 20 rule is there so you don't have to bother with the rolling or finding out how much time it takes. The task just takes twenty times as long.

 

[Dross]

I'll repeat my self...

I don't care about the name of it... "take 20" or not...


What I'm saying is this:
Giving a +2 bonus to a guy being helped by another to complete a task with repeated attempts and without risk of failure is only natural.

Actually the assumption is that you fail at least ONCE, on the first attempt (because if you cannot try again you cannot take 20).

If you can fail, then there is no guarantee that you can aid another at the time when the aided party needs it to produce the best result (a "22" on the roll).

For there to be no risk of failure, then the aider must have at least a +9 on the modifier. And at that point you do not need to bother with rolling anyway.

And I am not arguing that it takes twenty rolls for two people to roll a 20 at once because I don't believe that the Taking 20 rule follows the assumption that any rolling is taking place at all. It simply follows the assumption that you are taking your time.

You are taking your time, you just fail before you succeed (The "taking your time woth no failure but producing average quality is Take 10).

 

[Greenfield]

Actually, it takes 400 rolls for two people to roll 20s together. (Hence my reference to "take 400").

The only time this would be needed would be if the person providing Aid is at a -10 on the check, for some reason. They'd need a 20 on the dice to produce the 10 needed for Aid.

Consider that factor: You're trying your best, and you really need your best, and the only help you have is blind, crippled and /or insane. (i.e. -10 to the check.)

Yeah, you're going to be at that for a while.

The reason "Take 20" takes so long. and can't be done where there's a penalty for failure, is that you really are trying over and over again. "Take 20" theoretically means "take every number, including 1, to get a 20". And, as you very well know, actually rolling 20 times in no way guarantees that there will be a 20 anywhere in that set. Statistically, you'll get one about half the time, in fact. And sometimes you'll get more than one in there.

But you know me. I'm just running the numbers.

I don't see that Aid allows you to try over and over again, or take as much time as you need, right in the middle of someone else's effort. Two people working together have to work *together*. They need to coordinate in some way, and if one of them suddenly stops, changes his grip, pulls back to take a fresh view, reconsiders the problem, tries a different tool, has to spit on his hands, stops to wipe the sweat from his eyes, switches hands, stops to clean his tools, decides the first tool was the right one after all...

It would resemble a SitCom more than a challenging adventure, with the scene ending in Yakety-Sax, a slap fight and a chase scene.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnHmskwqCCQ[/ame]

 

[airwalkrr]

The reason "Take 20" takes so long. and can't be done where there's a penalty for failure, is that you really are trying over and over again. "Take 20" theoretically means "take every number, including 1, to get a 20". And, as you very well know, actually rolling 20 times in no way guarantees that there will be a 20 anywhere in that set. Statistically, you'll get one about half the time, in fact. And sometimes you'll get more than one in there.

It seems like this is the part you are really hung up on since you keep bringing it up. And I don't believe this part:

"Take 20" theoretically means "take every number, including 1, to get a 20".

I don't think that is the theory of it at all. If it were, the rule wouldn't be logical. As I have pointed out and you have admitted, rolling twenty times does not guarantee a 20, it merely produces good odds of getting at least one 20. Hence the taking 20 rule is not a theoretical "let's assume you roll twenty times because you're bound to get a 20 if you do," it is a semi-arbitrary assignment of taking twenty times as long to do something to treat your result as a 20. Would you make the same argument if the amount of time it required to take 20 was five minutes?

Given that the assignment of twenty times as long to accomplish the task as normal is an arbitrary limit that is in no way a statistical guarantee of a 20, but still lets you treat the roll as a 20 nonetheless, I see no reason to impose any sort of additional limit on taking 20 with an aid check.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I don't believe that the Taking 20 rule follows the assumption that any rolling is taking place at all. It simply follows the assumption that you are taking your time.

The theory behind the take 20 rule is that if you keep rolling over and over and over, eventually you'll get a 20. And rather than bore the heck out of everyone else at the table, we'll just assume you rolled 20 times and eventually got a 20, because statistically speaking, you should.

That doesn't mean you are assumed to have rolled every number from 1 to 20 once, but it certainly does assume you're rolling (over and over and over again); that's why you can't do it if there's a chance of failure. If it simply represented taking your time and being super-careful, you'd be able to take 20 even if a roll of 19 or less would result in failure.