Helping has to be RPed. If they can't figure out a way they could actually help, no advantage.
I'm thinking for example about something like deception. If player A is lying to an NPC, and player B wants to help, player B had better do some RP about it. Otherwise, no advantage.
How do you RP like history check? Character either knows it or dont. Or in investigation when they both try to find example ring in the haystack (it is too easy as other will just join in there to search). Tying it to RP just doesnt work that well many sitatuations (in deception it will work nicely tought).
They ask me if they know anything about the history, I tell them to make a history check. They pass, I tell them what they know. It's pretty simple. What do I see? Do a perception check and ill tell you. But nobody can say "I want to do a perception check".
In my game we use simple rule. Who ever made idea/called roll can throw it and everyone that is proficient in that skill can do it also if nearby.
One of my current groups for whom I DM has a bad tendency to "dogpile" on skill checks as well...which was more than a little frustrating with there being six players in that group. I had to have a couple discussions where I reminded them that no checks occur unless the DM calls for one first, which helped cut down on everybody trying to jump into a skill check situation.
I also implemented a concept similar to what MiG outlined above, where another character can only assist/help with the check if they are proficient and/or have a natural +3 or better bonus to the skill in question. The idea being that character's who aren't proficient or aren't naturally talented (i.e., having a +3 or better ability bonus) inhibits them from contributing enough to actually benefit the character making the skill check. Players were pretty receptive to the idea, and it greatly cut down on everybody jumping in to give advantage on every roll.
There's still a fair amount of collaboration on checks, but it's a lot more thought out and cooperative.
I dont like "helping" idea (we used it before) because it mostly will result almost all checks made with adventage (All others are "helping"... all the time). Thats why I prefer who ever get idea gets the roll (encourages everyone to try things) and proficient one can have second try becasue they should know those sorts of things. If there are no proficient ones (or first to roll was only proficient) then there is no second try.
Sometimes I will only allow helping if the other player is proficient which if you think about it is pretty much the same as letting them do the same thing a second time, it just streamlines them rolls
Helping has to be RPed. If they can't figure out a way they could actually help, no advantage.
I'm thinking for example about something like deception. If player A is lying to an NPC, and player B wants to help, player B had better do some RP about it. Otherwise, no advantage.
How do you RP like history check? Character either knows it or dont. Or in investigation when they both try to find example ring in the haystack (it is too easy as other will just join in there to search). Tying it to RP just doesnt work that well many sitatuations (in deception it will work nicely tought).
They ask me if they know anything about the history, I tell them to make a history check. They pass, I tell them what they know. It's pretty simple. What do I see? Do a perception check and ill tell you. But nobody can say "I want to do a perception check".
You'd be shocked how much "me too'ing" it stops.
History, nature, religion checks I let all players who’s background or skills would indicate they might know something, end of the day it might not be just the one person who asks the question that knows or doesn’t. Sometimes I might switch it up depending on the players, so religious symbols the cleric rolls a religion check but the wizard gets a history one. The details they recall might be subtly different because of there different approaches to it, also the DC might be different based on the skill.
Likewise Arcana checks if a player is checking to see what a magic item might do then they get a go and can then pass it to another player with arcana to try.
Translations and decoding a group effort might mean advantage with the DC adjusted based on the numbers helping.
Generally I just apply common sense to the task and how the party are approaching it. I did learn early on to state very clearly how many people get to check, and also stipulate that they can’t be in all places at once, so the one with the best perception can’t do the rolls for checking out front and behind the party for instance. But I do allow the party to split up tasks of there is time, for instance searching bodies/area for loot after a fight pretty much now all falls to one player now because they have +5 investigation. But I make clear that character is spending time doing that one thing so can’t then do 12 other things straight away.
I have found it helps to ask all players what their characters are doing before asking for any rolls.
GM: OK, the bard is investigating the glowing statue. What's the paladin doing during this time? Searching the bookcase, great. The barbarian? Guarding the door, got it. Right, bard player, give me a roll please.
Paladin player: Can I roll?
GM: Hang on, I'm dealing with the bard here, I'll get to you in a few seconds.
Don't allow takebacksies. The paladin's player said they were looking at the bookshelf, not the statue. If they want to look at the statue they can, but it will happen over the next time period (resulting in another roll for wandering monsters, or a countdown of a timer, or whatever).
On the other hand, if there is no time constraint, then fine, everyone can investigate everything.
On the other hand, if there is no time constraint, then fine, everyone can investigate everything.
This is generally when my players do the 'helping.' Not in the middle of a timed action sequence.
It doesn't have to be a timed action sequence, it just has to be something that has meaningful time constraints. If you really want to even out spotlight time, take turns (going around the table, or whatever) even outside of combat. In which case the answer to "Can I help" is "When your turn comes around, if that's still what you want to do, sure."
People engage in me-too because they want more attention than they're getting. Putting things in turns both helps the DM fairly distribute attention, and also limits players trying to horn in on what other players are doing (they might still attempt it, but the person who thought of it first gets the first chance to roll, and it's not free, it's something they're doing instead of their own plans).
My house rule is that only one person gets to attempt a skill check. If the others are there to offer timely insight, like when Merry helped Gandalf solve the riddle on the Doors of Durin, they roll with advantage. But if the first character (Gandalf) doesn't succeed, nobody else gets to try. That encourages people to help each other shine—they'll call over the Wizard to examine some runes, ask the Fighter to heave up the portcullis, and enlist the Rogue to pick a lock.
Also, I agree: only the DM can call for checks. In my game, players can ask to make them, and even that is pretty lenient. Some DMs prefer players to just describe their actions, and the DM will decide if a check is required for them.
The downside of your method is that it encourages people to not try to do things if they aren't the best person to do them.
In my campaigns it depends on the skill and why. In general, if you don't have proficiency, you don't get to roll. There are some cases in which anybody can roll regardless - athletics, etc. But for knowledge skills, if you didn't go to training, there is no way you'd know it.
If anything, I'd give advantage if both people had proficiency. If there is more than one person it would still only be one roll at advantage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
It is good that they are enthusiastic I guess. You can harness that to your advantage.
When they all start bobing up and down to make the same skill check, have them all roll and take the average. Eyeball estimate. Now narrate in terms of what the group as a whole knows depending on how the average stacks up to the DC.
I dont like "helping" idea (we used it before) because it mostly will result almost all checks made with adventage (All others are "helping"... all the time). Thats why I prefer who ever get idea gets the roll (encourages everyone to try things) and proficient one can have second try becasue they should know those sorts of things. If there are no proficient ones (or first to roll was only proficient) then there is no second try.
My group’s rule is only proficient characters can help. Still have a lot of situations where two characters are proficient and the one rolling gets advantage, but not every time. And it becomes more like, allowing an expert to give some advice than some joker acting like he knows what he’s talking about.
And even then, sometimes you can’t help, if someone is picking a lock, the other rogue doesn’t get to back seat lock pick, or if someone is climbing a rope, they can’t explain to the wizard how to have better grip strength.
I dont like "helping" idea (we used it before) because it mostly will result almost all checks made with adventage (All others are "helping"... all the time). Thats why I prefer who ever get idea gets the roll (encourages everyone to try things) and proficient one can have second try becasue they should know those sorts of things. If there are no proficient ones (or first to roll was only proficient) then there is no second try.
Sometimes I will only allow helping if the other player is proficient which if you think about it is pretty much the same as letting them do the same thing a second time, it just streamlines them rolls
That works too to a degree, but does not make sense in context that if history club (6 history proficient character) tries to determine origin of artifact vs. group that has only 1 person proficient and is helpping some noob. -> Both would get just one roll with adventage.
Streamlining rolls in age of VTT:s in no issue IMO (adn it is very fast even on table and dont slow that much the game). I just pick highest roll and go with it.
I dont like "helping" idea (we used it before) because it mostly will result almost all checks made with adventage (All others are "helping"... all the time). Thats why I prefer who ever get idea gets the roll (encourages everyone to try things) and proficient one can have second try becasue they should know those sorts of things. If there are no proficient ones (or first to roll was only proficient) then there is no second try.
Sometimes I will only allow helping if the other player is proficient which if you think about it is pretty much the same as letting them do the same thing a second time, it just streamlines them rolls
That works too to a degree, but does not make sense in context that if history club (6 history proficient character) tries to determine origin of artifact vs. group that has only 1 person proficient and is helpping some noob. -> Both would get just one roll with adventage.
Streamlining rolls in age of VTT:s in no issue IMO (adn it is very fast even on table and dont slow that much the game). I just pick highest roll and go with it.
As a DM I also adjust the DC based on who is helping and what they might all be good at, so your case above, 1 players asks to make a history check DC is 25, 2nd person helps, advantage, everyone has history and there is a good chance one of them might know a thing, dc them drops per player helping.
Yep, but just allowing every one proficient throw (with same DC) is IMO more easier and clean overall. And atleast my group players like it more as it is also more transparent and they really know they are helping (and they like to roll the dice... they always do).
The downside of your method is that it encourages people to not try to do things if they aren't the best person to do them.
I have struggled with that in my games. I'm not sure there is an answer, because it is so situational.
For "doing" situations, multiple people can try. If the fighter fails to open a door, other people can try, even the fighter can try again. But each attempt costs resources (time, money, tools, whatever) and makes noise, alerting every creature in the area. In this case, I'd ask for one roll per attempt.
Of course, if there is no cost for failure (time, money, resources, danger) then there is no need for a roll. The party just opens the door or just picks the lock.
For "knowing" situations, I really don't want to see multiple dice rolls. If the party doesn't know the information, then the party doesn't know it. It doesn't make sense to allow multiple attempts.
For example, the party is faced with a statue and someone asks, "Who is the statue of?" I'd say, "Give me an INT (History) please." If the player fails, what happens every time is that the rest of the players say "Can I roll?" or "I help!". First off, how exactly do you help someone remember a fact? Either they remember it or they don't. Second, if the wizard with the sage background doesn't know who the statue is, why would the barbarian with the sailor background know?
On the other hand, if I(as a GM) have a cool piece of lore then I want the players to find it out.
More and more these days, I'm just giving the party the lore without asking for any rolls, as long as someone in the party has a background or proficiency that might help.
The downside of your method is that it encourages people to not try to do things if they aren't the best person to do them.
It is desirable to have everyone involved in a given scene, but the actual mechanic of rolling is a pretty small part. Getting all the PCs involved in scenes is a pretty hard problem, though; 4th edition skill challenges were a noble effort though still flawed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They ask me if they know anything about the history, I tell them to make a history check. They pass, I tell them what they know. It's pretty simple. What do I see? Do a perception check and ill tell you. But nobody can say "I want to do a perception check".
You'd be shocked how much "me too'ing" it stops.
One of my current groups for whom I DM has a bad tendency to "dogpile" on skill checks as well...which was more than a little frustrating with there being six players in that group. I had to have a couple discussions where I reminded them that no checks occur unless the DM calls for one first, which helped cut down on everybody trying to jump into a skill check situation.
I also implemented a concept similar to what MiG outlined above, where another character can only assist/help with the check if they are proficient and/or have a natural +3 or better bonus to the skill in question. The idea being that character's who aren't proficient or aren't naturally talented (i.e., having a +3 or better ability bonus) inhibits them from contributing enough to actually benefit the character making the skill check. Players were pretty receptive to the idea, and it greatly cut down on everybody jumping in to give advantage on every roll.
There's still a fair amount of collaboration on checks, but it's a lot more thought out and cooperative.
Sometimes I will only allow helping if the other player is proficient which if you think about it is pretty much the same as letting them do the same thing a second time, it just streamlines them rolls
History, nature, religion checks I let all players who’s background or skills would indicate they might know something, end of the day it might not be just the one person who asks the question that knows or doesn’t. Sometimes I might switch it up depending on the players, so religious symbols the cleric rolls a religion check but the wizard gets a history one. The details they recall might be subtly different because of there different approaches to it, also the DC might be different based on the skill.
Likewise Arcana checks if a player is checking to see what a magic item might do then they get a go and can then pass it to another player with arcana to try.
Translations and decoding a group effort might mean advantage with the DC adjusted based on the numbers helping.
Generally I just apply common sense to the task and how the party are approaching it. I did learn early on to state very clearly how many people get to check, and also stipulate that they can’t be in all places at once, so the one with the best perception can’t do the rolls for checking out front and behind the party for instance. But I do allow the party to split up tasks of there is time, for instance searching bodies/area for loot after a fight pretty much now all falls to one player now because they have +5 investigation. But I make clear that character is spending time doing that one thing so can’t then do 12 other things straight away.
I have found it helps to ask all players what their characters are doing before asking for any rolls.
GM: OK, the bard is investigating the glowing statue. What's the paladin doing during this time? Searching the bookcase, great. The barbarian? Guarding the door, got it. Right, bard player, give me a roll please.
Paladin player: Can I roll?
GM: Hang on, I'm dealing with the bard here, I'll get to you in a few seconds.
Don't allow takebacksies. The paladin's player said they were looking at the bookshelf, not the statue. If they want to look at the statue they can, but it will happen over the next time period (resulting in another roll for wandering monsters, or a countdown of a timer, or whatever).
On the other hand, if there is no time constraint, then fine, everyone can investigate everything.
This is generally when my players do the 'helping.' Not in the middle of a timed action sequence.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It doesn't have to be a timed action sequence, it just has to be something that has meaningful time constraints. If you really want to even out spotlight time, take turns (going around the table, or whatever) even outside of combat. In which case the answer to "Can I help" is "When your turn comes around, if that's still what you want to do, sure."
People engage in me-too because they want more attention than they're getting. Putting things in turns both helps the DM fairly distribute attention, and also limits players trying to horn in on what other players are doing (they might still attempt it, but the person who thought of it first gets the first chance to roll, and it's not free, it's something they're doing instead of their own plans).
The downside of your method is that it encourages people to not try to do things if they aren't the best person to do them.
In my campaigns it depends on the skill and why. In general, if you don't have proficiency, you don't get to roll. There are some cases in which anybody can roll regardless - athletics, etc. But for knowledge skills, if you didn't go to training, there is no way you'd know it.
If anything, I'd give advantage if both people had proficiency. If there is more than one person it would still only be one roll at advantage.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I prefer 1 roll with advantage to 6 people all trying to make the same roll. But that's me.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It is good that they are enthusiastic I guess. You can harness that to your advantage.
When they all start bobing up and down to make the same skill check, have them all roll and take the average. Eyeball estimate. Now narrate in terms of what the group as a whole knows depending on how the average stacks up to the DC.
My group’s rule is only proficient characters can help. Still have a lot of situations where two characters are proficient and the one rolling gets advantage, but not every time. And it becomes more like, allowing an expert to give some advice than some joker acting like he knows what he’s talking about.
And even then, sometimes you can’t help, if someone is picking a lock, the other rogue doesn’t get to back seat lock pick, or if someone is climbing a rope, they can’t explain to the wizard how to have better grip strength.
That works too to a degree, but does not make sense in context that if history club (6 history proficient character) tries to determine origin of artifact vs. group that has only 1 person proficient and is helpping some noob. -> Both would get just one roll with adventage.
Streamlining rolls in age of VTT:s in no issue IMO (adn it is very fast even on table and dont slow that much the game). I just pick highest roll and go with it.
As a DM I also adjust the DC based on who is helping and what they might all be good at, so your case above, 1 players asks to make a history check DC is 25, 2nd person helps, advantage, everyone has history and there is a good chance one of them might know a thing, dc them drops per player helping.
Yep, but just allowing every one proficient throw (with same DC) is IMO more easier and clean overall. And atleast my group players like it more as it is also more transparent and they really know they are helping (and they like to roll the dice... they always do).
I have struggled with that in my games. I'm not sure there is an answer, because it is so situational.
For "doing" situations, multiple people can try. If the fighter fails to open a door, other people can try, even the fighter can try again. But each attempt costs resources (time, money, tools, whatever) and makes noise, alerting every creature in the area. In this case, I'd ask for one roll per attempt.
Of course, if there is no cost for failure (time, money, resources, danger) then there is no need for a roll. The party just opens the door or just picks the lock.
For "knowing" situations, I really don't want to see multiple dice rolls. If the party doesn't know the information, then the party doesn't know it. It doesn't make sense to allow multiple attempts.
For example, the party is faced with a statue and someone asks, "Who is the statue of?" I'd say, "Give me an INT (History) please." If the player fails, what happens every time is that the rest of the players say "Can I roll?" or "I help!". First off, how exactly do you help someone remember a fact? Either they remember it or they don't. Second, if the wizard with the sage background doesn't know who the statue is, why would the barbarian with the sailor background know?
On the other hand, if I(as a GM) have a cool piece of lore then I want the players to find it out.
More and more these days, I'm just giving the party the lore without asking for any rolls, as long as someone in the party has a background or proficiency that might help.
It is desirable to have everyone involved in a given scene, but the actual mechanic of rolling is a pretty small part. Getting all the PCs involved in scenes is a pretty hard problem, though; 4th edition skill challenges were a noble effort though still flawed.