Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5059293" data-attributes="member: 82106">Nonsense. You're being absurd. Out of combat characters can use the Cooperation rule, which is effectively exactly the same thing as Aid Another, but they can only use it "In some situations" whereas the combat rules are pretty much absolute (though note that AA has its own requirements). Only a truely idiotic DM would tell a player he can't Cooperate to open a lock when in a combat situation AA would work. This is a perfectly good example of why the "in some situations" wording is there, so the DM can say "well, you have to be standing next to the rogue to aid him" etc. so that things work consistently. Really? Its nice that you decide what is and isn't a "rule" in order to support your argument but I'm sorry that I look askance at that and will call people out for it. Its a specific instance of a whole class of statements in the core books like the DM can decide when and if Free Actions are allowable. These clauses exist as rules hooks that point out specific situations where the DM should exercise judgment. Thus cooperation is not something that PCs are entitled to at all times but only under DM arbitrated circumstances. Yes, it COULD happen in some situations. Its going to be up to the DM to decide when it is appropriate or not. There are plenty of times when its not. I don't personally believe that all knowledge type checks or social skill checks are valid instances. The case with physical skills is usually more clear cut. Cases where an expert is exercising their expert knowledge are likely to be the cases where an untrained non-expert simply hasn't anything meaningful to contribute. This whole thing with secondary skills was only illustrative, it simply doesn't bear on the fundamental logic of the argument at all. You can have any amount of analysis of that and it really isn't going to seal any kind of argument. Nothing "hangs on" any +2 bonus, secondary skills giving bonuses is only supportive evidence.And clearly I disagree. Cooperation is subject to DM arbitration as amply demonstrated. PCs are in no way shape or form entitled to use it unless the DM determines that situation warrants it. As I said before, the text certainly could be cleaned up a whole lot on some of these points, but clearly SCs are a very open framework. Its hard to even claim they are hard and fast rules in any sense beyond complexity and level and the associated DCs (and even the DCs don't appear to be set in stone). Fundamentally this to me is the nut of the whole thing. As a DM I consider an SC to work whatever way I decide its going to work so that it works WELL at the table. The various sections of the SC rules simply outline some things you can do and recommendations. Notice how even the example SCs introduce all sorts of minor mechanics (some of the DMG2 ones are barely recognizable as using the SC system at all). Its just not meant to be like combat where everything is normally expected to follow a pretty standardized set of rules unless there's a very special reason to alter one of them. Getting off the SC subject for a minute this bears on Korjik's statement. I think its better to think about the 4e rules much the same way as any rules of any other RPG. Yes they are pretty extensive and precise within certain limits but they are only the 'standard' way to do things. 4e also tends to stay well away from dictating things that are related to character development, setting, etc. and when it does provide SUPPORT in these areas its just suggesting an approach. IMHO this is the best that any RPG can do. I think 4e does it fairly well. There are really simple systems that might give you less cause to argue rules but they also tend to leave you on your own when it be nice to HAVE a rule. Kind of a two-edged sword there.</blockquote>

Verification