Take 20 on Aid Another?

[Greenfield]

Greenfield,

Do you have an opinion on why Take 10 is specifically not allowed with an Aid Another?

Based on the definition of both T20 and T10, logically I don't see a problem with with someone using T20...while someone else used AA and T10?

In your example, if I'm not blind and holding the light...I should be able to give the average AA bonus on every attempt.

Let's look at the premise behind a skill check, Aid Another, Take 10 and Take 20.

A skill check is one person, who we'll call a Primary, trying to do something challenging enough to call for a dice roll under normal circumstances.

Aid Another is a person, who we'll call a Secondary, trying to help a Primary, coordinating with them to get a better result.

Take 10 presumes that you take your time and work carefully to get an average result.

Take 20 presumes that you keep trying, over and over again, until you get it right. Further, it presumes that it will take you 20 times as long as a normal check to "get it right". This implies (though doesn't state) that you "get it right" at the end of the 20th try (because you would have quit after the third try if you'd gotten the "20" on that roll).

So the problem with either Take 10 or Take 20 while trying to help somebody else at a task might be timing. The Primary is doing his/her best on a normal attempt, taking the time needed for a single attempt. Someone trying to Take 10 or Take 20 to help them is working much slower, not coordinating at all.

Consider helping someone climb a wall. You want to give them a leg up at the start. If you don't lift at the same moment they push off, the two of you end up in a tangle.

It's like, "We'll go on 3. 1... 2... 3..?", where the second person is going on 17 instead. If the people aren't working together, it just doesn't work.

Can we think of examples where Aid doesn't need to coordinate the same way? Sure. Holding a ladder, keeping a climbing rope taut, and yeah, probably holding a light for someone. But the general rule says no because there are so many situations where relatively passive aid isn't what's called for.

 

[Arrowhawk]

But the general rule says no because there are so many situations where relatively passive aid isn't what's called for.

I don't agree with this generalization. AA another specifically does not have a hard fast rule about the type of aide provided. It's a judgment call by the DM. I've done a fair amount of mechanical work on my car and I can tell you someone just passively holding a light can be the difference between my succeeding and my failing. The person holding the light is clearly taking 10.

I also can't agree that Take 10 assumes any amount of time or extra focus or extra carefully required to Take 10. I would argue that it only requires the person is not distracted. A perfect example is shooting a lay-up in basketball. It doesn't take any more time to T10 than it would if had to roll because I was being defended. T10 is about accepting your average performance because you know that this wold be sufficient and having nothing to prevent you from consistently giving your average performance.

The only way I could see T20 and T10 not working is if the Primary's task was too distracting to the Secondary. Like the Secondary holding a nail steady while the Primary was driving it home with a sledge hammer.

So in short, it depends on the task and the type of aide, but I don't see a logical reason why T20 and T10 could never be used together outside the rule forbidding it.

 

[Greenfield]

I see your point. Take 10 doesn't actually say it takes any longer, that's just been a working premise.

I agree that there may not be any good reason why you can't Take 10 on an AA attempt, other than that the rules say you can't.

It may be that the authors were thinking, as we did, that "Take 10" implies taking your time, doing it by the numbers. It might be a perceived game balance issue. It could just be that they were out of pizza, and thus in a bad mood when they wrote that.

But I'm generally a "go by the rules" guy, if only because it keeps at-the-table arguments from dragging on forever, so for me the rule is enough.

 

[Arrowhawk]

I see your point.

Hmmm.....but I may still be wrong. It occurs to me that "holding the light" may not be at the level of assistance intended by Aid Another. I say this because the AA rule specifically says I can't AA on a task I can't do myself. So if I can't pick a lock..then holding a lantern closer to the lock is not a bonus allowed under AA. A DM could still give a bonus for the extra light...or say that negative modifier results without the light. But since anyone can hold a light...AA must involve a higher level of involvement...one that is not achievable through an average performance??

So it may go back to what you said about the type and nature of the assistance contemplated by AA. I might allow a player to convince me to allow T10 on AA, but in retrospect I'm more inclined to assume the rule is there to avoid trivializing AA.

so ..."I see your point."

 

[Greenfield]

AA says that they're making the same kind of check that the Primary is.

Depending on the type of lock that may not be possible at all.

Now holding a light may call for specific knowledge on where the light has to be or can't be for lock picking, and might be rolled against that same skill, even though the Secondary isn't doing any actual lock picking himself.

In general I'm kind of lenient on this, and seldom go into such detail as whether the Secondary is actually involved in the main activity, or is just taking direction.


"Okay, push right here! Feel the creak in the wood when you do that? That's what I need. Keep the strain on the bolt so it doesn't spring back while I work it back."

Neat game color, but not always there to such detail in play.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Now holding a light may call for specific knowledge on where the light has to be or can't be for lock picking.

***
"Okay, push right here! Feel the creak in the wood when you do that? That's what I need. Keep the strain on the bolt so it doesn't spring back while I work it back."

Exactly. And this comports with your notion that AA must contemplate level of involvement beyond an average performance for the skill attempted. As you suggested, two people have to work in concert.

That would be my explanation based on your explanation of why the AA disallows a Take 10.

 

[airwalkrr]

[MENTION=12460]airwalkrr[/MENTION]!!! We've been defeated!!!!

RC p10:

AID ANOTHER FOR SKILL CHECKS
You can help an ally achieve success on a skill check by using aid another. In cases when a skill restricts who can achieve certain results, you can’t use aid another to grant a bonus on a task that your character couldn’t achieve alone. A character who doesn’t have the trapfinding class feature, for instance, can’t use aid another to help a rogue on a Disable Device check to find a magic trap.
When you’re able to aid another on a skill check, you do so by making the same kind of skill check, taking the same amount of time that the skill check normally requires. You must roll for the check—you can’t take 10 or 20. If the result of your check is 10 or higher, the ally you’re helping receives a +2 bonus on the skill check.

No matter my defeat in respect to RAW...

I STILL believe that:
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....

I evoke p30 of DMG, I name this a "favorite circumstance" and the one being helped gets his +2 anyway...

Hmm, I never imagined the RC would actually add information in this way, but I guess it shouldn't be too much of a surprise as the RC has incorporated errata. But even though it isn't technically allowed, I still see no problem with it under most circumstances.

 

[airwalkrr]

There really isn't much point in discussing this further. The RC states you can't take 20 on an aid another check (something I was not aware of before starting this thread) and that's an official D&D rules source. I have no problem allowing the take 20 on aid another checks, but as far as what the rules say, it is now pretty clear. So anyone allowing take 20 on an aid another check is invoking rule 0. And I have no problem with that.

 

[Jimlock]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwW_y2TuW58]Charge at Falkirk - YouTube[/ame]