Aid another - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Aid another

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
pluisjen
Aug 07, 2009 3:01:07 So I've had the following situation come up a few times and it kinda irks me and my fellow players.

Player A: Wizard, Arcana trained, +10 bonus.
Player B: Cleric, not trained in Arcana, +1 bonus.

Player A tries to manipulate an Arcane object, while Player B helps. Player B rolls a 20 on his check, getting a 21 to aid.
Player A then rolls a 1, getting a total of 11, with the +2 bonus making 13. That's still lower then Player B, so now player B feels he wasted the roll and, after the fact, thinks he should've made the main check, knowing in the back of his head it doesn't work that way, and Player A is bummed that even with a good roll and help from the other player, he screwed up the challenge.

To avoid this, I was thinking about a house rule for my own games, but I want some opinions...

The players decide ingame who performs the action. Each character rolls a normal check. Then, the player who performs the action takes the highest result among the normal checks, and adds +1 for each other roll that succeeded on a normal Aid check.

This way; a good roll isn't wasted, a player won't be as likely to completely screw up with 6 people standing around him, watching his every move (which is kinda silly, when you think about it) and the overall feeling, even if they still fail, will be better.

I've dropped the normal +2 aid bonus to +1 to compensate for the higher outcomes a bit.

Does anyone think this rule is silly, broken, or unnecesary?
#2
Novacat
Aug 07, 2009 3:14:37 Something you may consider, since adding rolls is extremely powerful, is this:

• Aid Another allows you to roll an extra d20, but adds nothing to the total.
• You must be trained in the skill to Aid Another

Even so, this is significantly more powerful than the current Aid Another system.

Also: A player feeling bad for failing is one thing. Altering the system because a player feels bad about failing on a Natural 1? That's something else.
#3
pluisjen
Aug 07, 2009 5:19:40 The issue isn't so much that the player failed; it's that the challenge failed, even though the other player rolled a result high enough to succeed.

Player B basically completed the challenge on his own with his Aid check by rolling a 20, but then the challenge still failed because player A rolled low. That just feels a bit wrong.

Also; it's not adding extra dice, each player uses his own bonus. Player A rolls 1d20+10, but player B only gets 1d20+1, so the chance of player B getting more then player A is actually pretty limited. It's just for the off chance where it happens that even with a low bonus, B passes on his own, while A, who makes the real check, rolls dreadfully low and fails.

In the example; the end result would be 22 (player B totalled at 21, with a +1 aid bonus from player A), not 30 (player A uses the 20 rolled by player B, then adds his own +10 bonus to get to 30)

Basically I think it's just seeing the dice and statistics messing with your brain. Because you can see that you didn't just Aid, you passed the whole check on your own, it sucks extra hard that the challenge still failed because the other player missed it.
This problem wouldn't exist at all if the DM rolled the aid check behind his screen and just said '+2 bonus!' or 'no bonus', but by getting the full result of the check visible and essentialy useless, it becomes a bit annoying.
#4
bone_naga
Aug 07, 2009 5:45:24 I don't think the situation really warrants a houserule. Obviously if the challenge was failed, that was not the only failed check, so it does not fall entirely on that player (unless he failed all the other checks too). Also, skill challenges are supposed to be challenging. There's no challenge if the players can't fail. If you make it too easy, you lose the tension of rolling the dice. There's a reason skill challenges aren't supposed to be critical to the continuation of the adventure, because sometimes the party fails. Just my 2 cents.
#5
slobo777a
Aug 07, 2009 8:50:45
The issue isn't so much that the player failed; it's that the challenge failed, even though the other player rolled a result high enough to succeed.

Player B basically completed the challenge on his own with his Aid check by rolling a 20, but then the challenge still failed because player A rolled low. That just feels a bit wrong.

However, taking the highest of two dice rolls (or 3 or 4 if you have more than one assistant) is far too effective.

I don't have a problem with the current rules. If the player had decided to roll for something else that turned out to be trivial "I search the room while he does the ritual", he could not have transferred the result. He chose to assist, and is not performing the main action. If he fancied his chances, he should of had a go.

If that doesn't work for you, how about not rolling dice for assistants (to avoid "apparently I succeeded on my own")

E.g.

* All assistants Take 10
* A result of 15-19 grants +1
* A result of 20-24 grants +2
* A result of 25-29 grants +3
* Etc.

This might lead to a group having some abolsutely huge bonus if they all work together on something. So you might also restrict the maximum allowed bonus - perhaps to a further +max of groups best stat bonus for the check (i.e. if main caster had a +6 Int bonus, then the most help they could provide is a +6 - sorry I don't know if I have nerfed my suggestion ).
#6
pyromancer2k
Aug 16, 2009 11:38:57 While it can be annoying that the aid other roll actually is higher then the end check you have to remember it is balanced against the fact there is no penalty. The bigger problem with Aid another in my opinion is the fact that players know there is no negative consequences to rolling it. They either get to add +2 or they don't. This combined with the fact that the DC remains a constant 10 means that it's not long before aid other becomes an auto success.

In my opinion aid other needs to be based of the DC of the challenge so the player aiding gets maybe a +5 bonus or something but still needs to roll the DC of the challenge in order to contribute in a meaningful way. But also there needs to a penalty for failure since there are lots of examples where trying to help someone might screw things up. For example diplomacy with an NPC might get screwed up by saying the wrong thing.

The fact that aid other could not only fail but have a negative impact on the check adds a bit more suspense to roll as well as making things a bit more believable in my opinion. After all why would you get someone with low INT and not trained in arcane to help you solve an arcane issue? That's like asking an average person to help with a complicated physics problem. While you might get lucky and find someone who knows a lot the average person doesn't know advanced physics and won't be of any help. But they could also be a hindrance as they distract you since you have to explain stuff to them while working through something.

The fact that a failure would have a negative impact would mean you don't have a punch of people with low ability modifiers who are untrained in a skill rolling aid others every time a skill check came up.
#7
pyromancer2k
Aug 16, 2009 11:50:03
However, taking the highest of two dice rolls (or 3 or 4 if you have more than one assistant) is far too effective.

QFT.

A simple way to show this is say you have a 50% chance of success. While the person who wants to assist has a 20% chance of success. The odds of both of them failing the roll is (50% * 80% = 40%). This means they have an overall chance of success of 60% which is what the main character would get if and only if the aid other guy was successful yet this is given by default simply by attempting the aid other.

The numbers get even worst if you have two characters with equal chances of success. Say 2 characters have a 50% chance of success yet they do the aid other with take highest. Well that means they effectively have a 75% chance of success since there is only a 25% chance both with fail the check. This is the same issue people have with the avenger being over powered because he can constantly roll 2 d20s on attack rolls giving him a huge hit bonus. That 25% boost for being able to roll 2 dice is effectively a +5 to a single roll in this example.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 pluisjen Aug 07, 2009 3:01:07	So I've had the following situation come up a few times and it kinda irks me and my fellow players. Player A: Wizard, Arcana trained, +10 bonus. Player B: Cleric, not trained in Arcana, +1 bonus. Player A tries to manipulate an Arcane object, while Player B helps. Player B rolls a 20 on his check, getting a 21 to aid. Player A then rolls a 1, getting a total of 11, with the +2 bonus making 13. That's still lower then Player B, so now player B feels he wasted the roll and, after the fact, thinks he should've made the main check, knowing in the back of his head it doesn't work that way, and Player A is bummed that even with a good roll and help from the other player, he screwed up the challenge. To avoid this, I was thinking about a house rule for my own games, but I want some opinions... The players decide ingame who performs the action. Each character rolls a normal check. Then, the player who performs the action takes the highest result among the normal checks, and adds +1 for each other roll that succeeded on a normal Aid check. This way; a good roll isn't wasted, a player won't be as likely to completely screw up with 6 people standing around him, watching his every move (which is kinda silly, when you think about it) and the overall feeling, even if they still fail, will be better. I've dropped the normal +2 aid bonus to +1 to compensate for the higher outcomes a bit. Does anyone think this rule is silly, broken, or unnecesary?
#2 Novacat Aug 07, 2009 3:14:37	Something you may consider, since adding rolls is extremely powerful, is this: • Aid Another allows you to roll an extra d20, but adds nothing to the total. • You must be trained in the skill to Aid Another Even so, this is significantly more powerful than the current Aid Another system. Also: A player feeling bad for failing is one thing. Altering the system because a player feels bad about failing on a Natural 1? That's something else.
#3 pluisjen Aug 07, 2009 5:19:40	The issue isn't so much that the player failed; it's that the challenge failed, even though the other player rolled a result high enough to succeed. Player B basically completed the challenge on his own with his Aid check by rolling a 20, but then the challenge still failed because player A rolled low. That just feels a bit wrong. Also; it's not adding extra dice, each player uses his own bonus. Player A rolls 1d20+10, but player B only gets 1d20+1, so the chance of player B getting more then player A is actually pretty limited. It's just for the off chance where it happens that even with a low bonus, B passes on his own, while A, who makes the real check, rolls dreadfully low and fails. In the example; the end result would be 22 (player B totalled at 21, with a +1 aid bonus from player A), not 30 (player A uses the 20 rolled by player B, then adds his own +10 bonus to get to 30) Basically I think it's just seeing the dice and statistics messing with your brain. Because you can see that you didn't just Aid, you passed the whole check on your own, it sucks extra hard that the challenge still failed because the other player missed it. This problem wouldn't exist at all if the DM rolled the aid check behind his screen and just said '+2 bonus!' or 'no bonus', but by getting the full result of the check visible and essentialy useless, it becomes a bit annoying.
#4 bone_naga Aug 07, 2009 5:45:24	I don't think the situation really warrants a houserule. Obviously if the challenge was failed, that was not the only failed check, so it does not fall entirely on that player (unless he failed all the other checks too). Also, skill challenges are supposed to be challenging. There's no challenge if the players can't fail. If you make it too easy, you lose the tension of rolling the dice. There's a reason skill challenges aren't supposed to be critical to the continuation of the adventure, because sometimes the party fails. Just my 2 cents.
#5 slobo777a Aug 07, 2009 8:50:45	The issue isn't so much that the player failed; it's that the challenge failed, even though the other player rolled a result high enough to succeed. Player B basically completed the challenge on his own with his Aid check by rolling a 20, but then the challenge still failed because player A rolled low. That just feels a bit wrong. However, taking the highest of two dice rolls (or 3 or 4 if you have more than one assistant) is far too effective. I don't have a problem with the current rules. If the player had decided to roll for something else that turned out to be trivial "I search the room while he does the ritual", he could not have transferred the result. He chose to assist, and is not performing the main action. If he fancied his chances, he should of had a go. If that doesn't work for you, how about not rolling dice for assistants (to avoid "apparently I succeeded on my own") E.g. * All assistants Take 10 * A result of 15-19 grants +1 * A result of 20-24 grants +2 * A result of 25-29 grants +3 * Etc. This might lead to a group having some abolsutely huge bonus if they all work together on something. So you might also restrict the maximum allowed bonus - perhaps to a further +max of groups best stat bonus for the check (i.e. if main caster had a +6 Int bonus, then the most help they could provide is a +6 - sorry I don't know if I have nerfed my suggestion ).
#6 pyromancer2k Aug 16, 2009 11:38:57	While it can be annoying that the aid other roll actually is higher then the end check you have to remember it is balanced against the fact there is no penalty. The bigger problem with Aid another in my opinion is the fact that players know there is no negative consequences to rolling it. They either get to add +2 or they don't. This combined with the fact that the DC remains a constant 10 means that it's not long before aid other becomes an auto success. In my opinion aid other needs to be based of the DC of the challenge so the player aiding gets maybe a +5 bonus or something but still needs to roll the DC of the challenge in order to contribute in a meaningful way. But also there needs to a penalty for failure since there are lots of examples where trying to help someone might screw things up. For example diplomacy with an NPC might get screwed up by saying the wrong thing. The fact that aid other could not only fail but have a negative impact on the check adds a bit more suspense to roll as well as making things a bit more believable in my opinion. After all why would you get someone with low INT and not trained in arcane to help you solve an arcane issue? That's like asking an average person to help with a complicated physics problem. While you might get lucky and find someone who knows a lot the average person doesn't know advanced physics and won't be of any help. But they could also be a hindrance as they distract you since you have to explain stuff to them while working through something. The fact that a failure would have a negative impact would mean you don't have a punch of people with low ability modifiers who are untrained in a skill rolling aid others every time a skill check came up.
#7 pyromancer2k Aug 16, 2009 11:50:03	However, taking the highest of two dice rolls (or 3 or 4 if you have more than one assistant) is far too effective. QFT. A simple way to show this is say you have a 50% chance of success. While the person who wants to assist has a 20% chance of success. The odds of both of them failing the roll is (50% * 80% = 40%). This means they have an overall chance of success of 60% which is what the main character would get if and only if the aid other guy was successful yet this is given by default simply by attempting the aid other. The numbers get even worst if you have two characters with equal chances of success. Say 2 characters have a 50% chance of success yet they do the aid other with take highest. Well that means they effectively have a 75% chance of success since there is only a 25% chance both with fail the check. This is the same issue people have with the avenger being over powered because he can constantly roll 2 d20s on attack rolls giving him a huge hit bonus. That 25% boost for being able to roll 2 dice is effectively a +5 to a single roll in this example.