Anyone else have problems with their players constantly "helping" each other to get advantage on all of their checks?
"I'd like to investigate the treasure"...."I'll help!"
"Can I see if they are lying"..."I'll help!"
"I'd like to check for traps"..."I'll help!"
"I'd like to disarm the trap"..."I'll help!"
Seems like I can't do anything without everyone constantly helping each other with advantage rolls everywhere. And when they fail, they always ask to try again with more advantage.
Does anyone have any ways around this without taking away the fun and help feature?
Firstly, make sure that the player explains how their character is helping and what relevant skill they are using - this can add to the role-playing too.
Statistically, it's reasonable though - getting the character who is best at investigating on the party to roll at advantage is in most scenarios about the same as if everyone on the party rolled their own investigation roll.
The key is, you have to be clear to the group of players that when they opt to make a roll for the group in this manner that they can't then go, "Oh that failed, well someone else can roll the investigation roll instead and we'll help them."
Interesting. I never thought about making it such that if someone rolls and gets help, it's a roll for the group. That might calm things down a lot. Thanks!
I typically ignore that rule and just let anyone who wants to help roll their own check. However, I only let someone proficient in the relative check make the roll (can't have the barbarian helping with an arcana check and expect your wizard to get any real help, ya know). This keeps everyone in their lanes as far as specialties go and essentially meets the same purpose as the advantage granting in the first place.
I also consider situations where the task to be accomplished would be hindered by having more than one person. Some traps are small and intricate, and can only have one person examining how to disarm it. Another person would just get in the way and maybe set it off. On the other hand, searching a library for a book of a particular subject could benefit from one scholarly PC directing three or four others to search certain areas. For things like that, i'll typically just have the player directing his helpers make the relavent roll and lower the DC depending on how many people are helping.
I've used two different ways to somewhat curb this problem, as well as stopping piggybacking when someone rolls badly.
> To help, you must be proficient in the relevant skill. If you aren't proficient in Survival and you're trying to help the Ranger track, you're probably going to do more bad than good.
Or
> If you want to help, you roll your own check in that skill. If you roll 10 or higher, you help enough to grant advantage. If you roll under 10, you actually give disadvantage, because you're 'distracting' more than helping.
I do the former if I have a decent amount of skill overlap, and I do the latter with no/little skill overlap.
These don't apply within combat for me, since you'd have to give up your whole action to help, so I give that one to them.
Ok, here's some maths, because I am interested to see if my assumptions are correct.
Consider a party of five characters that wants to investigate a scene for clues. They have the following totals for Intelligence ([Tooltip Not Found]):
Let us say that the DC (Difficulty Check) to find the clue is 10.
What are the chances of at least one character succeeding, if they all roll individually?To work that out, we calculate the chance of everyone failing.
Fighter: needs to roll 10+, so 45% fail. Wizard: needs to roll 7+, so 30% fail. Cleric: needs to roll 9+, so 40% fail. Rogue: needs to roll 4+, so 15% fail. Warlock: needs to roll 6+, so 25% fail.
The statistical probability of all of them failing is 0.45 x 0.30 x 0.40 x 0.15 x 0.25 = 0.002
That's a 99.8% chance of at least one character succeeding!
If instead we say that the Rogue (best skill in investigate) rolls with advantage because the group is helping, how does that affect the check?
The chance of failure is 0.15 x 0.15 = 0.02
That's a 98% chance of success. So in this case, both methods will almost certainly succeed, but there is statistical difference.
Let's repeat that with DC of 15, 20 & 25.
DC: 15 investigation
Fighter: needs to roll 15+, so 70% fail. Wizard: needs to roll 12+, so 55% fail. Cleric: needs to roll 14+, so 65% fail. Rogue: needs to roll 9+, so 40% fail. Warlock: needs to roll 11+, so 50% fail.
Chance of success if they all roll = 1 - (0.7 x 0.55 x 0.65 x 0.4 x 0.5) = 95% success
Chance of success if the Rogue rolls with help = 1 - (0.4 x 0.4) = 84% success
DC: 20 investigation
Fighter: needs to roll 20, so 95% fail. Wizard: needs to roll 17+, so 80% fail. Cleric: needs to roll 19+, so 90% fail. Rogue: needs to roll 14+, so 65% fail. Warlock: needs to roll 16+, so 75% fail.
Chance of success if they all roll = 1 - (0.95 x 0.8 x 0.9 x 0.65 x 0.75) = 67% success
Chance of success if the Rogue rolls with help = 1 - (0.65 x 0.65) = 57% success
DC: 25 investigation
Fighter: needs to roll 20, so 95% fail. Wizard: needs to roll 20, so 95% fail. Cleric: needs to roll 20, so 95% fail. Rogue: needs to roll 19+, so 90% fail. Warlock: needs to roll 20, so 95% fail.
Chance of success if they all roll = 1 - (0.95 x 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.90 x 0.95) = 27% success
Chance of success if the Rogue rolls with help = 1 - (0.9 x 0.9) = 19% success
Conclusion - in all cases, it is statistically better for the group to scatter and all individually look for clues, than for the character with the most knowledge of what they are doing to coordinate efforts, with the less skilled members helping them.
Ok, here's some maths, because I am interested to see if my assumptions are correct.
Consider a party of five characters that wants to investigate a scene for clues. They have the following totals for Intelligence ([Tooltip Not Found]):
Let us say that the DC (Difficulty Check) to find the clue is 20.
What are the chances of at least one character succeeding, if they all roll individually?To work that out, we calculate the chance of everyone failing.
Fighter: needs to roll 10+, so 45% fail. Wizard: needs to roll 7+, so 30% fail. Cleric: needs to roll 9+, so 40% fail. Rogue: needs to roll 4+, so 15% fail. Warlock: needs to roll 6+, so 25% fail.
The statistical probability of all of them failing is 0.45 x 0.30 x 0.40 x 0.15 x 0.25 = 0.002
That's a 99.8% chance of at least one character succeeding!
If instead we say that the Rogue (best skill in investigate) rolls with advantage because the group is helping, how does that affect the check?
The chance of failure is 0.15 x 0.15 = 0.02
That's a 98% chance of success. So in this case, both methods will almost certainly succeed, but there is statistical difference.
Let's repeat that with DC of 25, 30 & 35.
DC: 25 investigation
Fighter: needs to roll 15+, so 70% fail. Wizard: needs to roll 12+, so 55% fail. Cleric: needs to roll 14+, so 65% fail. Rogue: needs to roll 9+, so 40% fail. Warlock: needs to roll 11+, so 50% fail.
Chance of success if they all roll = 1 - (0.7 x 0.55 x 0.65 x 0.4 x 0.5) = 95% success
Chance of success if the Rogue rolls with help = 1 - (0.4 x 0.4) = 84% success
DC: 30 investigation
Fighter: needs to roll 20, so 95% fail. Wizard: needs to roll 17+, so 80% fail. Cleric: needs to roll 19+, so 90% fail. Rogue: needs to roll 14+, so 65% fail. Warlock: needs to roll 16+, so 75% fail.
Chance of success if they all roll = 1 - (0.95 x 0.8 x 0.9 x 0.65 x 0.75) = 67% success
Chance of success if the Rogue rolls with help = 1 - (0.65 x 0.65) = 57% success
DC: 35 investigation
Fighter: needs to roll 20, so 95% fail. Wizard: needs to roll 20, so 95% fail. Cleric: needs to roll 20, so 95% fail. Rogue: needs to roll 19+, so 90% fail. Warlock: needs to roll 20, so 95% fail.
Chance of success if they all roll = 1 - (0.95 x 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.90 x 0.95) = 27% success
Chance of success if the Rogue rolls with help = 1 - (0.9 x 0.9) = 19% success
Conclusion - in all cases, it is statistically better for the group to scatter and all individually look for clues, than for the character with the most knowledge of what they are doing to coordinate efforts, with the less skilled members helping them.
Unless you use the group check rule, which means if half the group doesn't succeed, everyone fails. This would decrease the success of the full group, especially on more difficult checks.
Group Checks
When a number of individuals are trying to accomplish something as a group, the DM might ask for a group ability check. In such a situation, the characters who are skilled at a particular task help cover those who aren't.
To make a group ability check, everyone in the group makes the ability check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. Otherwise, the group fails.
Doesn't need to be used all the time, and I think in the specific skill example you provided (searching for clues) it wouldn't apply. But if everyone was Investigating for a trap... Well, I feel like that might end in the trap being activated if it wasn't at least 50% successful.
It’s early in the morning for me but I think your math might be wrong or I’m misinterpreting your numbers.
An ability check is the modifier + 1d20 not the raw score + 1d20.
The fighter with an intelligence of 10 has +0 modifier, he needs a 20 to find something DC 20 not 10+.
The wizard chose an interesting line work with a 13 but gets a +1 and is probably proficient in Investigation for another 2+ ( depending on level ). She needs a 17+ for DC 20.
Recalculate as such and I feel like advantage (being ~+5) is better. I’ll have to sit at a desktop with spreadsheet to check.
I typically ignore that rule and just let anyone who wants to help roll their own check. However, I only let someone proficient in the relative check make the roll (can't have the barbarian helping with an arcana check and expect your wizard to get any real help, ya know). This keeps everyone in their lanes as far as specialties go and essentially meets the same purpose as the advantage granting in the first place.
I also consider situations where the task to be accomplished would be hindered by having more than one person. Some traps are small and intricate, and can only have one person examining how to disarm it. Another person would just get in the way and maybe set it off. On the other hand, searching a library for a book of a particular subject could benefit from one scholarly PC directing three or four others to search certain areas. For things like that, i'll typically just have the player directing his helpers make the relavent roll and lower the DC depending on how many people are helping.
I do this too. The person who isn't proficient with thief's tools is going to be more of a hindrance to the rogue than a help. Similarly, for "I'm going to lift this gate" type checks, I require that the assisting character have a positive modifier in the relevant ability.
I would never allow someone to help on an insight-type check, I don't think.
"Can I see if they are lying"..."I'll help!" : Always no. You can't help someone to know if someone else is lying. That's always an individual thing. Plus these sort of checks should be done by you behind the screen else regardless of the roll the players get too much information.
Two characters could deliberate with each other along the lines of "do you think we can trust this?" and that is plenty of explanation for using a single check that is given advantage from help instead of two independent checks. Also, hiding dice rolls behind a screen is one of many ways of playing - not the one way it "should" be done.
"I'd like to check for traps"..."I'll help!": Always a no. Traps are perception checks, people can't help you with perception checks.
Two people working together to search a given area for traps seems reasonable to consider more likely to find any traps that are present than one person working alone, so it can make sense for help to be given on a search for traps. Also, who says people can't help you with perception checks? Got a rules quote or designer clarification on that?
I would only add one of my favorite Gygax quotes about players "playing" the system from the 1st edition DMG, "Don't give players a free lunch".
Trying to follow Gygax's advice is a rough way to try and play the game - not only because decades of potential improvements sit between that DMG and today, but because even in those original writings the guy was back-and-forth on things and staggeringly inconsistent. He did, after all, write both the rules for listening at a door to get some clue what lies beyond and the ear worms to dis-incentivize players from engaging those rules into the game - and many other examples where on one page he advocates for making the players happy, and on another page is talking about keeping those untrustworthy and obnoxious things called players under your strict and absolute control.
Remember that all aspects of every single ability check roll (except the dice itself) are under the control of the DM. You decide if/when the players can make a check. You decide if the check is passive or active. You decide how many players can make a roll and whether someone helping can give advantage (along with all other circumstances that might grant advantage of disadvantage). You decide the DC, and what happens if they pass or fail (or if critical passes/fails have any effect). Once you've made those decisions then you allow the dice to be rolled and reveal the result (it's bad form to change your mind after the dice roll as that seems a bit cheaty). If the players want to influence your decisions before the roll then they should do so by role-playing the game, not just by trying to invoke some rule.
I'd just ask the person doing the help to describe fictionally how they're assisting. IMO having players who enthusiastically want to help out and be part of the scenes is a good thing. And if they don't have a justification for how they're helping, then they can't grant the advantage.
For me, I hate the check for traps every 10 feet and the oh i see the [character] missed their role, i'll roll too.
I've adopted the must be proficient to roll and allow helpers, but they must indicate how they are helping. They can't just say, "I help". Try to make them think a little and role play it a bunch.
For me, I hate the check for traps every 10 feet and the oh i see the [character] missed their role, i'll roll too.
If the second character was not actively looking for traps, how would they know the first one "failed"? The player can surely know, but letting them roll based on the player's knowledge would be heavy meta-gaming. I would personally not allow it unless I get a VERY good, in-game explanation on why they should.
Edit: same applies if player1 says "well, I failed, so I say I think therest something wrong and everyone can try". That is still using player's knowledge as character's knowledge. The rogue doesn't know they failed in spotting a trap, they are sure there is nothing.
The problem with checks like traps, insight etc is that for the game it is be better if DM not a player rolls. If player rolls then it ends in heavy meta-gaming.
Btw if npc tells the truth and players checks "if he is lyling". If player fails we should tell him that in his opinion npc lies?
Btw if npc tells the truth and players checks "if he is lyling". If player fails we should tell him that in his opinion npc lies?
Interesting question. I'd say that if they specifically asked if the npc is lying, implying they are suspicious, failing the insight roll would have them believe the npc is indeed lying.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Btw if npc tells the truth and players checks "if he is lyling". If player fails we should tell him that in his opinion npc lies?
I prefer to have the difference between successful insight and failed insight be noticing evidence that suggests whatever might be true (such as seeing signs of honesty if the person is telling the truth, or seeing signs of deceit if they are lying) or failing to notice evidence either way, rather than believing the wrong thing.
That way it is up to the player to choose how their character will behave, instead of up to the whim of the dice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Anyone else have problems with their players constantly "helping" each other to get advantage on all of their checks?
"I'd like to investigate the treasure"...."I'll help!"
"Can I see if they are lying"..."I'll help!"
"I'd like to check for traps"..."I'll help!"
"I'd like to disarm the trap"..."I'll help!"
Seems like I can't do anything without everyone constantly helping each other with advantage rolls everywhere. And when they fail, they always ask to try again with more advantage.
Does anyone have any ways around this without taking away the fun and help feature?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersThere are some ways you can tackle this.
Firstly, make sure that the player explains how their character is helping and what relevant skill they are using - this can add to the role-playing too.
Statistically, it's reasonable though - getting the character who is best at investigating on the party to roll at advantage is in most scenarios about the same as if everyone on the party rolled their own investigation roll.
The key is, you have to be clear to the group of players that when they opt to make a roll for the group in this manner that they can't then go, "Oh that failed, well someone else can roll the investigation roll instead and we'll help them."
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Interesting. I never thought about making it such that if someone rolls and gets help, it's a roll for the group. That might calm things down a lot. Thanks!
I typically ignore that rule and just let anyone who wants to help roll their own check. However, I only let someone proficient in the relative check make the roll (can't have the barbarian helping with an arcana check and expect your wizard to get any real help, ya know). This keeps everyone in their lanes as far as specialties go and essentially meets the same purpose as the advantage granting in the first place.
I also consider situations where the task to be accomplished would be hindered by having more than one person. Some traps are small and intricate, and can only have one person examining how to disarm it. Another person would just get in the way and maybe set it off. On the other hand, searching a library for a book of a particular subject could benefit from one scholarly PC directing three or four others to search certain areas. For things like that, i'll typically just have the player directing his helpers make the relavent roll and lower the DC depending on how many people are helping.
#OpenDnD. #DnDBegone
I've used two different ways to somewhat curb this problem, as well as stopping piggybacking when someone rolls badly.
> To help, you must be proficient in the relevant skill. If you aren't proficient in Survival and you're trying to help the Ranger track, you're probably going to do more bad than good.
Or
> If you want to help, you roll your own check in that skill. If you roll 10 or higher, you help enough to grant advantage. If you roll under 10, you actually give disadvantage, because you're 'distracting' more than helping.
I do the former if I have a decent amount of skill overlap, and I do the latter with no/little skill overlap.
These don't apply within combat for me, since you'd have to give up your whole action to help, so I give that one to them.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersOk, here's some maths, because I am interested to see if my assumptions are correct.
Consider a party of five characters that wants to investigate a scene for clues. They have the following totals for Intelligence ([Tooltip Not Found]):
Fighter: +0
Wizard: +3
Cleric: +1
Rogue: +6
Warlock: +4
Let us say that the DC (Difficulty Check) to find the clue is 10.
What are the chances of at least one character succeeding, if they all roll individually?To work that out, we calculate the chance of everyone failing.
Fighter: needs to roll 10+, so 45% fail.
Wizard: needs to roll 7+, so 30% fail.
Cleric: needs to roll 9+, so 40% fail.
Rogue: needs to roll 4+, so 15% fail.
Warlock: needs to roll 6+, so 25% fail.
The statistical probability of all of them failing is 0.45 x 0.30 x 0.40 x 0.15 x 0.25 = 0.002
That's a 99.8% chance of at least one character succeeding!
If instead we say that the Rogue (best skill in investigate) rolls with advantage because the group is helping, how does that affect the check?
The chance of failure is 0.15 x 0.15 = 0.02
That's a 98% chance of success. So in this case, both methods will almost certainly succeed, but there is statistical difference.
Let's repeat that with DC of 15, 20 & 25.
DC: 15 investigation
Fighter: needs to roll 15+, so 70% fail.
Wizard: needs to roll 12+, so 55% fail.
Cleric: needs to roll 14+, so 65% fail.
Rogue: needs to roll 9+, so 40% fail.
Warlock: needs to roll 11+, so 50% fail.
Chance of success if they all roll = 1 - (0.7 x 0.55 x 0.65 x 0.4 x 0.5) = 95% success
Chance of success if the Rogue rolls with help = 1 - (0.4 x 0.4) = 84% success
DC: 20 investigation
Fighter: needs to roll 20, so 95% fail.
Wizard: needs to roll 17+, so 80% fail.
Cleric: needs to roll 19+, so 90% fail.
Rogue: needs to roll 14+, so 65% fail.
Warlock: needs to roll 16+, so 75% fail.
Chance of success if they all roll = 1 - (0.95 x 0.8 x 0.9 x 0.65 x 0.75) = 67% success
Chance of success if the Rogue rolls with help = 1 - (0.65 x 0.65) = 57% success
DC: 25 investigation
Fighter: needs to roll 20, so 95% fail.
Wizard: needs to roll 20, so 95% fail.
Cleric: needs to roll 20, so 95% fail.
Rogue: needs to roll 19+, so 90% fail.
Warlock: needs to roll 20, so 95% fail.
Chance of success if they all roll = 1 - (0.95 x 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.90 x 0.95) = 27% success
Chance of success if the Rogue rolls with help = 1 - (0.9 x 0.9) = 19% success
Conclusion - in all cases, it is statistically better for the group to scatter and all individually look for clues, than for the character with the most knowledge of what they are doing to coordinate efforts, with the less skilled members helping them.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Unless you use the group check rule, which means if half the group doesn't succeed, everyone fails. This would decrease the success of the full group, especially on more difficult checks.
Doesn't need to be used all the time, and I think in the specific skill example you provided (searching for clues) it wouldn't apply. But if everyone was Investigating for a trap... Well, I feel like that might end in the trap being activated if it wasn't at least 50% successful.
It’s early in the morning for me but I think your math might be wrong or I’m misinterpreting your numbers.
An ability check is the modifier + 1d20 not the raw score + 1d20.
The fighter with an intelligence of 10 has +0 modifier, he needs a 20 to find something DC 20 not 10+.
The wizard chose an interesting line work with a 13 but gets a +1 and is probably proficient in Investigation for another 2+ ( depending on level ). She needs a 17+ for DC 20.
Recalculate as such and I feel like advantage (being ~+5) is better. I’ll have to sit at a desktop with spreadsheet to check.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersOh, I'll have a look again in a moment, possible I made mistakes - I was actually just doing all that maths in my head and typing it up in notepad.
For some reason I had added 10 to the total skill level for each of the characters, so I fixed that and reduced the DC by 10 in each example.
Maths all fixed up!
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Two characters could deliberate with each other along the lines of "do you think we can trust this?" and that is plenty of explanation for using a single check that is given advantage from help instead of two independent checks. Also, hiding dice rolls behind a screen is one of many ways of playing - not the one way it "should" be done.
Two people working together to search a given area for traps seems reasonable to consider more likely to find any traps that are present than one person working alone, so it can make sense for help to be given on a search for traps. Also, who says people can't help you with perception checks? Got a rules quote or designer clarification on that?
Trying to follow Gygax's advice is a rough way to try and play the game - not only because decades of potential improvements sit between that DMG and today, but because even in those original writings the guy was back-and-forth on things and staggeringly inconsistent. He did, after all, write both the rules for listening at a door to get some clue what lies beyond and the ear worms to dis-incentivize players from engaging those rules into the game - and many other examples where on one page he advocates for making the players happy, and on another page is talking about keeping those untrustworthy and obnoxious things called players under your strict and absolute control.Remember that all aspects of every single ability check roll (except the dice itself) are under the control of the DM. You decide if/when the players can make a check. You decide if the check is passive or active. You decide how many players can make a roll and whether someone helping can give advantage (along with all other circumstances that might grant advantage of disadvantage). You decide the DC, and what happens if they pass or fail (or if critical passes/fails have any effect). Once you've made those decisions then you allow the dice to be rolled and reveal the result (it's bad form to change your mind after the dice roll as that seems a bit cheaty). If the players want to influence your decisions before the roll then they should do so by role-playing the game, not just by trying to invoke some rule.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersA quick reminder all - we will not tolerate personal attacks on these forums.
If you feel that a post someone has made is out of order, you should not reply to flame them back.
Use the report button and a moderator will deal with it.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I'd just ask the person doing the help to describe fictionally how they're assisting. IMO having players who enthusiastically want to help out and be part of the scenes is a good thing. And if they don't have a justification for how they're helping, then they can't grant the advantage.
For me, I hate the check for traps every 10 feet and the oh i see the [character] missed their role, i'll roll too.
I've adopted the must be proficient to roll and allow helpers, but they must indicate how they are helping. They can't just say, "I help". Try to make them think a little and role play it a bunch.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Help only if proficient sounds good.
The problem with checks like traps, insight etc is that for the game it is be better if DM not a player rolls. If player rolls then it ends in heavy meta-gaming.
Btw if npc tells the truth and players checks "if he is lyling". If player fails we should tell him that in his opinion npc lies?
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games