I'm curious how other DM's handle this. Do you just allow any player to "help" with any ability check?
Here's a situation: the party of 7 is taking a long rest camping in the woods. The Monk and the Fighter are taking watch together. DM calls for Perception checks. OoC, the fighter says, "[Monk] you have +7 perception and I only have +1, I'll just give you advantage with the help action"
At first, I was fine with this, but the more I thought about it the more issues arose. In a large party like mine (7 players) there's ALWAYS someone available to Assist which makes advantage the "new-normal" Which I really don't like.
Also, what could you be doing to "Help with perception" that can't also be described as "also perceiving"?
For example: ROGUE: "I search for traps" DM: "Roll Perception" BARD: "I'll assist to give rogue!" DM: "Isn't assisting someone looking for traps.... Also looking for traps?"
So recently in my group, I've implemented a rule saying that they have to describe HOW they're helping and I'll decide if that's an "assistance" or just another instance of a check
What do you guys think of continuous "Help"? How do you all handle it?
In your example, I would make them roll separately because the characters are both, independently, looking around.
In another example, if the party is all trying to identify an item, I will rule that one person identifies it whilst the others can help.
Not only does "helping to keep watch make advantage, as you say, the new normal, it increases the chances of rolling a higher result, and it skips any roleplay - if one person sees something and the others do not, then they get to roleplay explaining what they saw, rather than one person "helping" and both of them somehow seeing.
I will also make players explain how they are helping. "I help him keep watch for 4 hours" isn't a help action, it's also taking watch.
Help actions should be there to enforce and encourage roleplay and character interactions. I won't let it fly often, in a game, to have someone just say "I do help action". Describe how you help, and why that would help!
If someone wants to Help at my table, they at a minimum need to have Proficiency in the skill they're helping with. They don't *need* to necessarily describe how, but my party is pretty good at small roleplay moments and will often do them anyway.
I don't have hard and fast house rules for the difference between "help" and "I also do that", but when things seem to get silly (one by one everybody starts deciding to Investigate once they see the other low rolls, etc) I'll put a limit on it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Begin and end with the fiction. If a player says "my character helps" then ask, "Cool, what does that look like?"
Get a description of what the characters are doing in the gameworld before even thinking of asking for a dice roll.
In the case of perception, it is not really possible to help someone. You can have two people on watch, which means twice the chance of spotting things, but it won't make one person's vision and hearing any better. Two people on watch means two rolls using two different characters' WIS (Perception) values.
In the case of finding traps, the same applies. Two people looking for traps is, as you say, two people looking for traps. If it is hidden above the skill level of both of them to spot, there's no way either of them can spot it.
When it comes time to disarm the trap, help can apply. Two people working on a problem together can produce a better result, because they come at the problem from different approaches and collaborate on the problem solving. One roll, at advantage, adding their highest INT (Thief's Tools) value.
As a GM, I generally require the helped character to have proficiency. If you don't know what you are doing then collaboration doesn't really help - you still don't know what you are doing.
Whether or not the helping character requires proficiency depends on the task. For some tasks, unskilled help is valuable. For others, it is not.
I agree that the players don't get to decide who gets advantage, and when that happens. They describe their actions and if the action seems in line with help then the rule applies. Putting the ownership on the players to make that believable and understandable might curb some instances of potential abuse. At the same time, forcing them to construct a plan from the POV of their PC, in the game world, is roleplay. Not acting, mind you, but thinking from the perspective of their character about how their PC's world works. They engage with the game world without realizing that they are doing it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
My general rule of thumb is that, if you want to help, you have to explain how you're helping, and the explanation can't be one that simply works out to "I'll also try and roll". This makes it quite unlikely that you can actually use it with things like perception, though not impossible.
I like to have my players to describe what their characters are doing. If they do something smart, I decrease the challenge for them and if they do something dumb, I increase it. The same applies to helping someone, they should describe how they are helping. If it is a particularly stupid help (e.g. dwarf in mail goes around the camp to listen to stuff while making a lot of noise), it is actually a disadvantage. If they do the same thing, they just roll separately. If it is a useful help, they get the advantage.
I like these DM stories. You guys are lucky to have engaging players that know the rules and each other's characters enough that you have to worry about homebrewing stuff for the help action. I run my stuff as written since I love my friends but I'm pretty sure half of them haven't even touched the PhB, so most situations are just: Friend 1 : I wanna look around. Friend 2 : Yea, me too or: Friend 1 : I wanna look around Friend 2 : Can I help her? Or the classic: Friend 1 : I wanna look around Friend 2 :
I don't think I've ever heard them ask about each others stats before a roll.
I'd like to point out that the advantage from help is mostly to help you, the DM. Sure it helps the players too if the one with the biggest modifier makes the roll.
But IMO the most important reason for Help is to avoid a roll fest. So instead of all players taking their time to roll dice and calculate modifiers, you assign one player to do it and the rest are giving them advantage. Speeds things up a lot.
Second point. Ultimately you decide who makes the roll. Usually the one most involved / in control. So if a player carefully explains what they want to do and then another player wants to make the roll for a better modifier. I'd say the most active player makes the roll. In a truly joint effort I'd let them choose.
Third point. Back to point 1. If you feel like there is no need for Help like the perception case, then they should roll separately.
Fourth point. Back to second point. I usually ask my players to justify the help. As in how exactly do you help? This adds flavor and allows them to use their abilities creatively. Example: someone wants to see what's in the distance. Goliath Barbarian wants to help. How exactly will you help him see? "I lift him up on my extended arms as high as I can. That's like 3 meters higher". Awesome, they get advantage. I like to reward creativity. 😄
My only concern with help outside of combat is when a DM requires proficiency in that skill. The most common example given is that a wizard doesn't have the strength to help the barbarian with the athletics check to move the boulder out of the road, and the barbarian doesn't have the mental capacity to understand spellcasting and therefore can't help with an arcana check.
If you have a human wizard using standard array, his STR score will probably be a 9, meaning he can carry 135 pounds or push 270 pounds. A human barbarian using standard array would probably have a STR score of 16, meaning he can carry 240 pounds or push 480 pounds. The two of them together easily have the combined strength to move a 500 pound boulder out of the middle of the road. Why does the wizard need proficiency in athletics to help when his strength score says he can do it? If that wizard were a goliath (using the same starting STR score as the human), with a +2 to his STR, and counting as a size larger when determining carrying capacity, he can push up to 600 pounds. Would that goliath wizard really need proficiency in athletics if he were physically stronger that the human barbarian? Or what if the wizard found another rock and a sturdy stick to create a lever and use physics (which I would assume he would have learned about in his studies) to move the boulder. Does he really need proficiency in athletics to use his intelligence to help?
As far as the barbarian helping with the arcana check, this is very situational, but it illustrates a couple points. I sat at a table that had a halfling wild magic barbarian. In his backstory he was abducted and experimented on for about a year by an evil wizard. The result of these experiments was his "Hulkification" that imbued him with his wild magic. During his time in captivity he would have seen repeated use of certain spells. He would probably remember a lot of the words or materials used in those spells. So even though he may not understand how the spell works, he may know enough to help a young wizard with some pronunciation, or what types of materials are used in a certain type of spell. My first point with this is that the character's backstory is almost as important as his ability scores. The second is that the DM isn't limited to advantage or nothing. If I was the DM in this situation, I would not allow a roll with advantage, but I may allow a +1 to whatever the skill checker rolled.
There is no point in rolling stats or creating backstories if we're going to ignore them. I have heard DM after DM complaining about how his players won't roleplay. The rule that requires proficiency to help takes away the character's basic non-rolled abilities and takes away roleplay entirely. My overall point is that if a player can reasonably explain why or how his character can do something, there is no reason not to let him try.
I'm curious how other DM's handle this. Do you just allow any player to "help" with any ability check?
Here's a situation: the party of 7 is taking a long rest camping in the woods. The Monk and the Fighter are taking watch together. DM calls for Perception checks. OoC, the fighter says, "[Monk] you have +7 perception and I only have +1, I'll just give you advantage with the help action"
So - because when someone says, "I have a + ____ in _____" to me takes me out of the game as a DM - I will allow my players to say, "I am good/pretty good/etc" at specific skills without saying a number. I also don't allow them to say how many hit points they're at - only "I'm good", "Got some wounds on me", "Getting close to bloodied" (half way), "Bloodied", "Very bloodied" (or something along those lines - no saying, "I have 32 hit points" or "I have 16 out of 32 hit points" or whatever). I believe that helps keep the game feeling more game like... without breaking "the fourth wall" if you will. This keeps everyone's character sheets a mystery from one another.
So it would be - Fighter: Well, I am not so great at perception. What about you Monk?
Monk: Well, I've trained for years to be aware of the world around me, so I'm quite skilled.
Fighter: Well, go on and look - I'll look over here, make sure nothing's coming for us.
I only allow one character to help another when it makes sense to do so. It is the DMs decision based on what the characters say they are doing in response to the situation. The player doesn't decide when help makes sense, the DM does, so a player saying "X is helping me, I roll with advantage" is a hard NO. :)
RAW says:
"Sometimes two or more characters team up to attempt a task. The character who’s leading the effort — or the one with the highest ability modifier — can make an ability check with advantage, reflecting the help provided by the other characters. In combat, this requires the Help action (see chapter 9, “Combat”).
A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves’ tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task. Moreover, a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as threading a needle, are no easier with help."
There are two conditions mentioned here for applying help
- a character can only help if it is something that they could attempt alone
- two or more individuals working together would actually be productive
Examples and how I would apply them.
Perception checks: These are checks made with a character's senses to notice something. If someone can explain how my eyes make looking it easier for my friend to see better then I might allow a help action (no one has managed that yet) .. so perception checks almost never would be allowed with the help action. They would both get to roll separately.
Investigation checks: Investigation involves examining something and logically deducing based on what you can see/sense. Searching a desk for a secret door, looking for a trap and a variety of other tasks could be investigation. However, since these often involve the character figuring something out I would usually allow the help action since it can be useful to bounce ideas off someone else and they might think of something the character making the roll might have missed. i.e. Helping on investigation tasks usually makes sense.
Gated checks: Sometimes checks are gated behind having a specific proficiency. This may reflect that the knowledge/problem involved would only be solvable by an individual who has spent time learning a particular skill and as a result proficiency in the skill may be required to make the check in the first place. Help action would be allowed in most cases but only if both the helper and the character making the check are proficient in the relevant skill.
Example: Tracking some creatures in the woods. This might require a survival check to follow the tracks. However, if the creatures being tracked are unusual or not common then figuring out how many there are or what kind of creature they are might require proficiency in the survival skill reflecting time spent learning about different kinds of tracks and how to interpret the marks on the ground. Anyone could help with following the tracks, but only someone proficient could try to figure out numbers and nature of the creature if it is unusual.
Persuasion/Intimidation/Deception checks: Depending on the circumstance I will usually allow the help action if the player comes up with something useful to say that might influence the result (doesn't have to be wonderful, great or original) but just saying "I help character X persuade Y" doesn't usually cut it from a roleplaying perspective though I'll consider giving inspiration for making a good try (especially for players that have trouble with it).
Athletics: The wizard can always help the barbarian push the boulder/lift the gate/shove over the top of the crypt - though sometimes these are gated by a minimum total strength of the characters pushing. So a task requiring 30 total strength could be performed by 2 x 16 strength characters or 1 x 16 and 2 x8 strength characters - allowing them to make a check. (That mechanic is in some of the WotC published modules and seems pretty useful to use from time to time).
Acrobatics: Depending on what a character is doing, it would be rare for one character to be able to help another with an acrobatics check but I might allow it if the circumstances allowed one character to talk the other through doing something dextrous or they were using a rope or tools to assist with the check.
-----
The bottom line is that the DM decides when helping another makes sense. :)
Athletics: The wizard can always help the barbarian push the boulder/lift the gate/shove over the top of the crypt - though sometimes these are gated by a minimum total strength of the characters pushing. So a task requiring 30 total strength could be performed by 2 x 16 strength characters or 1 x 16 and 2 x8 strength characters - allowing them to make a check. (That mechanic is in some of the WotC published modules and seems pretty useful to use from time to time).
The bottom line is that the DM decides when helping another makes sense. :)
I agree - always comes down to ruling. But the one for Athletics - how I would flavor that is - not so much that the wizard is pushing the rock - the Wizard would be using his mind, to understand the physics, of how to better push this rock - like, "Now, put a board right there, now a stick behind that boulder - that's going to get rid of the odd terrain, and push the boulder easier onto the flat surface of the board, making it easier to push once it's there. Yes, there. You got it."
I agree - always comes down to ruling. But the one for Athletics - how I would flavor that is - not so much that the wizard is pushing the rock - the Wizard would be using his mind, to understand the physics, of how to better push this rock - like, "Now, put a board right there, now a stick behind that boulder - that's going to get rid of the odd terrain, and push the boulder easier onto the flat surface of the board, making it easier to push once it's there. Yes, there. You got it."
What you're looking for is a 4th edition skill challenge. Which was a great concept, though the implementation had issues.
I'd like to point out that the advantage from help is mostly to help you, the DM. Sure it helps the players too if the one with the biggest modifier makes the roll.
But IMO the most important reason for Help is to avoid a roll fest. So instead of all players taking their time to roll dice and calculate modifiers, you assign one player to do it and the rest are giving them advantage. Speeds things up a lot.
This...exactly. No one enjoys spending countless hours because you failed a few checks to keep the adventure going.
We pretty much play AL only so it is the help action as long as your are proficient...and almost always someone has guidance as well.
I'm curious how other DM's handle this. Do you just allow any player to "help" with any ability check?
Here's a situation: the party of 7 is taking a long rest camping in the woods. The Monk and the Fighter are taking watch together. DM calls for Perception checks. OoC, the fighter says, "[Monk] you have +7 perception and I only have +1, I'll just give you advantage with the help action"
At first, I was fine with this, but the more I thought about it the more issues arose. In a large party like mine (7 players) there's ALWAYS someone available to Assist which makes advantage the "new-normal" Which I really don't like.
Also, what could you be doing to "Help with perception" that can't also be described as "also perceiving"?
For example: ROGUE: "I search for traps" DM: "Roll Perception" BARD: "I'll assist to give rogue!" DM: "Isn't assisting someone looking for traps.... Also looking for traps?"
So recently in my group, I've implemented a rule saying that they have to describe HOW they're helping and I'll decide if that's an "assistance" or just another instance of a check
What do you guys think of continuous "Help"? How do you all handle it?
I make it a group check and ask how they're assisting rather than the help action. I've seen a lot of attempts at "I help them for perma-advantage" and I have to veto it pretty quickly. That's like saying you're taking the Dodge action all the time so all surprise attacks have disadvantage
I often do out of combat help action by either having someone in my party treat a dieses a PC and/or NPC has, or stich someone's wounds or something like that.
I also love d̶̡̼̥̻͙̣̼̿͂͐͘ę̴̢̨̛̼̙̤̻̞̠̗̳̝̦̹̹̦͍̉̏͛̽͠͠sţ̵̢̼̹̭̖͔͎̞̪͇͚̞̇̀̇̀̒͂̇̍͊̏ru̸̮̭̪̠͆̑̍́̈́̑̾̒̑̂̕ͅc̶̢̜͓̮̩͎͕̄́͑̃̈͋̈͌̑̽͠ͅͅţ̵̢̼̹̭̖͔͎̞̪͇͚̞̇̀̇̀̒͂̇̍͊̏io̵̪̭̞̗̝͙̝̬̥͕̒ͅn̸̨͖̳͓͍̜̬̗̪̜̪̗̺͆̏̆̊́̈́̿̎̅̈͠͝͝ in my campaigns! In other words, i'm an evil DM.
Forgive me. I'm an old fart that can't figure out how to add a quote from a previous post. So here goes with the best I can do until I do more studying.
David42 said "A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves’ tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task."
First, I can't find that wording in the Player's Handbook. Is there another section where it makes that clarification?
Second, again, forgive me, but isn't that like saying you can't use a hammer or a screwdriver or a saw because you don't have proficiency with carpenter's tools or tinker's tools? Therefore, you can't hammer up planks across the window to keep the zombies out? Or you can't use a spatula to flip an egg because you don't have proficiency with cook's utensils? Therefore, you can't help another character make breakfast for a larger group? Obviously, without the proficiency (or even expertise) you wouldn't be able to build a decent piece of furniture, or make a gourmet meal. But wouldn't you still be able to drive a nail or cook a meager breakfast?
Your example of proficiency with thieves' tools does kind of make sense in that you probably wouldn't pick up a lockpick unless you have learned or intend to learn to use it. But I don't understand why someone can't have the option to try without the proficiency. I thought the whole concept of proficiency was that you were better at a skill because you worked at it. Doesn't that mean you can still use the tool without the proficiency, you just won't get as good results?
I apologize if I'm coming across as argumentative. I'm just trying to understand if I should be doing things differently in my games.
The use of Help action depend on the ability check used, what task is being achieved and how the help can occur. In my campaign it's not a guaranteed but more of a case by case. Just like some ability check can only be attempted if you're proficient in a Skill, some help can only happen under certain circumstances. I may ask myself ''is the active part from another may help contribute to the success of the task attemped?'' And ''Does it also require any proficiency from the helper?'' Tasks that can only be achieved alone like picking some lock for exemple may not be suitable for Help. Likewise, a task requiring proficiency in a specific tool or skill may also be required by the helper to even be possible.
Things like helping an ally lift a gate can be straightforward, but helping perceive may not be as appropriate, unless say you're facilitating perception somehow by muffling sound or clearring obscurement for exemple, Otherwise all it may do is provide a seperate task ability check attempt.
Sometimes the help is not directly doing the task but taking other shape, just like during attack where help involve hindering or distracting the target, help may be concentrated on the target, like in the context of Charisma check during performance or deception of some sort, or to persuade intimidate others where the helper can help cheer, distract, threat or mislead the target somehow.
I'm curious how other DM's handle this. Do you just allow any player to "help" with any ability check?
Here's a situation: the party of 7 is taking a long rest camping in the woods. The Monk and the Fighter are taking watch together. DM calls for Perception checks. OoC, the fighter says, "[Monk] you have +7 perception and I only have +1, I'll just give you advantage with the help action"
At first, I was fine with this, but the more I thought about it the more issues arose. In a large party like mine (7 players) there's ALWAYS someone available to Assist which makes advantage the "new-normal" Which I really don't like.
Also, what could you be doing to "Help with perception" that can't also be described as "also perceiving"?
For example: ROGUE: "I search for traps" DM: "Roll Perception" BARD: "I'll assist to give rogue!" DM: "Isn't assisting someone looking for traps.... Also looking for traps?"
So recently in my group, I've implemented a rule saying that they have to describe HOW they're helping and I'll decide if that's an "assistance" or just another instance of a check
What do you guys think of continuous "Help"? How do you all handle it?
I separate "helping" from "I also do that".
In your example, I would make them roll separately because the characters are both, independently, looking around.
In another example, if the party is all trying to identify an item, I will rule that one person identifies it whilst the others can help.
Not only does "helping to keep watch make advantage, as you say, the new normal, it increases the chances of rolling a higher result, and it skips any roleplay - if one person sees something and the others do not, then they get to roleplay explaining what they saw, rather than one person "helping" and both of them somehow seeing.
I will also make players explain how they are helping. "I help him keep watch for 4 hours" isn't a help action, it's also taking watch.
Help actions should be there to enforce and encourage roleplay and character interactions. I won't let it fly often, in a game, to have someone just say "I do help action". Describe how you help, and why that would help!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Very validating to hear someone who does the same thing lol.
If someone wants to Help at my table, they at a minimum need to have Proficiency in the skill they're helping with. They don't *need* to necessarily describe how, but my party is pretty good at small roleplay moments and will often do them anyway.
I don't have hard and fast house rules for the difference between "help" and "I also do that", but when things seem to get silly (one by one everybody starts deciding to Investigate once they see the other low rolls, etc) I'll put a limit on it.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Begin and end with the fiction. If a player says "my character helps" then ask, "Cool, what does that look like?"
Get a description of what the characters are doing in the gameworld before even thinking of asking for a dice roll.
In the case of perception, it is not really possible to help someone. You can have two people on watch, which means twice the chance of spotting things, but it won't make one person's vision and hearing any better. Two people on watch means two rolls using two different characters' WIS (Perception) values.
In the case of finding traps, the same applies. Two people looking for traps is, as you say, two people looking for traps. If it is hidden above the skill level of both of them to spot, there's no way either of them can spot it.
When it comes time to disarm the trap, help can apply. Two people working on a problem together can produce a better result, because they come at the problem from different approaches and collaborate on the problem solving. One roll, at advantage, adding their highest INT (Thief's Tools) value.
As a GM, I generally require the helped character to have proficiency. If you don't know what you are doing then collaboration doesn't really help - you still don't know what you are doing.
Whether or not the helping character requires proficiency depends on the task. For some tasks, unskilled help is valuable. For others, it is not.
I agree that the players don't get to decide who gets advantage, and when that happens. They describe their actions and if the action seems in line with help then the rule applies. Putting the ownership on the players to make that believable and understandable might curb some instances of potential abuse. At the same time, forcing them to construct a plan from the POV of their PC, in the game world, is roleplay. Not acting, mind you, but thinking from the perspective of their character about how their PC's world works. They engage with the game world without realizing that they are doing it.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
My general rule of thumb is that, if you want to help, you have to explain how you're helping, and the explanation can't be one that simply works out to "I'll also try and roll". This makes it quite unlikely that you can actually use it with things like perception, though not impossible.
I like to have my players to describe what their characters are doing. If they do something smart, I decrease the challenge for them and if they do something dumb, I increase it.
The same applies to helping someone, they should describe how they are helping. If it is a particularly stupid help (e.g. dwarf in mail goes around the camp to listen to stuff while making a lot of noise), it is actually a disadvantage. If they do the same thing, they just roll separately. If it is a useful help, they get the advantage.
I like these DM stories. You guys are lucky to have engaging players that know the rules and each other's characters enough that you have to worry about homebrewing stuff for the help action. I run my stuff as written since I love my friends but I'm pretty sure half of them haven't even touched the PhB, so most situations are just:
Friend 1 : I wanna look around.
Friend 2 : Yea, me too
or:
Friend 1 : I wanna look around
Friend 2 : Can I help her?
Or the classic:
Friend 1 : I wanna look around
Friend 2 :
I don't think I've ever heard them ask about each others stats before a roll.
I'd like to point out that the advantage from help is mostly to help you, the DM. Sure it helps the players too if the one with the biggest modifier makes the roll.
But IMO the most important reason for Help is to avoid a roll fest. So instead of all players taking their time to roll dice and calculate modifiers, you assign one player to do it and the rest are giving them advantage. Speeds things up a lot.
Second point. Ultimately you decide who makes the roll. Usually the one most involved / in control. So if a player carefully explains what they want to do and then another player wants to make the roll for a better modifier. I'd say the most active player makes the roll. In a truly joint effort I'd let them choose.
Third point. Back to point 1. If you feel like there is no need for Help like the perception case, then they should roll separately.
Fourth point. Back to second point. I usually ask my players to justify the help. As in how exactly do you help? This adds flavor and allows them to use their abilities creatively. Example: someone wants to see what's in the distance. Goliath Barbarian wants to help. How exactly will you help him see? "I lift him up on my extended arms as high as I can. That's like 3 meters higher". Awesome, they get advantage. I like to reward creativity. 😄
Finland GMT/UTC +2
My only concern with help outside of combat is when a DM requires proficiency in that skill. The most common example given is that a wizard doesn't have the strength to help the barbarian with the athletics check to move the boulder out of the road, and the barbarian doesn't have the mental capacity to understand spellcasting and therefore can't help with an arcana check.
If you have a human wizard using standard array, his STR score will probably be a 9, meaning he can carry 135 pounds or push 270 pounds. A human barbarian using standard array would probably have a STR score of 16, meaning he can carry 240 pounds or push 480 pounds. The two of them together easily have the combined strength to move a 500 pound boulder out of the middle of the road. Why does the wizard need proficiency in athletics to help when his strength score says he can do it? If that wizard were a goliath (using the same starting STR score as the human), with a +2 to his STR, and counting as a size larger when determining carrying capacity, he can push up to 600 pounds. Would that goliath wizard really need proficiency in athletics if he were physically stronger that the human barbarian? Or what if the wizard found another rock and a sturdy stick to create a lever and use physics (which I would assume he would have learned about in his studies) to move the boulder. Does he really need proficiency in athletics to use his intelligence to help?
As far as the barbarian helping with the arcana check, this is very situational, but it illustrates a couple points. I sat at a table that had a halfling wild magic barbarian. In his backstory he was abducted and experimented on for about a year by an evil wizard. The result of these experiments was his "Hulkification" that imbued him with his wild magic. During his time in captivity he would have seen repeated use of certain spells. He would probably remember a lot of the words or materials used in those spells. So even though he may not understand how the spell works, he may know enough to help a young wizard with some pronunciation, or what types of materials are used in a certain type of spell. My first point with this is that the character's backstory is almost as important as his ability scores. The second is that the DM isn't limited to advantage or nothing. If I was the DM in this situation, I would not allow a roll with advantage, but I may allow a +1 to whatever the skill checker rolled.
There is no point in rolling stats or creating backstories if we're going to ignore them. I have heard DM after DM complaining about how his players won't roleplay. The rule that requires proficiency to help takes away the character's basic non-rolled abilities and takes away roleplay entirely. My overall point is that if a player can reasonably explain why or how his character can do something, there is no reason not to let him try.
TL;DR Proficiency isn't everything. DM's shouldn't ignore backstories and rolled stats.
sorry so long
So - because when someone says, "I have a + ____ in _____" to me takes me out of the game as a DM - I will allow my players to say, "I am good/pretty good/etc" at specific skills without saying a number. I also don't allow them to say how many hit points they're at - only "I'm good", "Got some wounds on me", "Getting close to bloodied" (half way), "Bloodied", "Very bloodied" (or something along those lines - no saying, "I have 32 hit points" or "I have 16 out of 32 hit points" or whatever). I believe that helps keep the game feeling more game like... without breaking "the fourth wall" if you will. This keeps everyone's character sheets a mystery from one another.
So it would be -
Fighter: Well, I am not so great at perception. What about you Monk?
Monk: Well, I've trained for years to be aware of the world around me, so I'm quite skilled.
Fighter: Well, go on and look - I'll look over here, make sure nothing's coming for us.
And thus, giving the help action to the Monk.
Feels more fluid to me.
Check out my publication on DMs Guild: https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?author=Tawmis%20Logue
Check out my comedy web series - Neverending Nights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wr4-u9-zw0&list=PLbRG7dzFI-u3EJd0usasgDrrFO3mZ1lOZ
Need a character story/background written up? I do it for free (but also take donations!) - https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?591882-Need-a-character-background-written-up
I only allow one character to help another when it makes sense to do so. It is the DMs decision based on what the characters say they are doing in response to the situation. The player doesn't decide when help makes sense, the DM does, so a player saying "X is helping me, I roll with advantage" is a hard NO. :)
RAW says:
"Sometimes two or more characters team up to attempt a task. The character who’s leading the effort — or the one with the highest ability modifier — can make an ability check with advantage, reflecting the help provided by the other characters. In combat, this requires the Help action (see chapter 9, “Combat”).
A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves’ tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task. Moreover, a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as threading a needle, are no easier with help."
There are two conditions mentioned here for applying help
- a character can only help if it is something that they could attempt alone
- two or more individuals working together would actually be productive
Examples and how I would apply them.
Perception checks: These are checks made with a character's senses to notice something. If someone can explain how my eyes make looking it easier for my friend to see better then I might allow a help action (no one has managed that yet) .. so perception checks almost never would be allowed with the help action. They would both get to roll separately.
Investigation checks: Investigation involves examining something and logically deducing based on what you can see/sense. Searching a desk for a secret door, looking for a trap and a variety of other tasks could be investigation. However, since these often involve the character figuring something out I would usually allow the help action since it can be useful to bounce ideas off someone else and they might think of something the character making the roll might have missed. i.e. Helping on investigation tasks usually makes sense.
Gated checks: Sometimes checks are gated behind having a specific proficiency. This may reflect that the knowledge/problem involved would only be solvable by an individual who has spent time learning a particular skill and as a result proficiency in the skill may be required to make the check in the first place. Help action would be allowed in most cases but only if both the helper and the character making the check are proficient in the relevant skill.
Example: Tracking some creatures in the woods. This might require a survival check to follow the tracks. However, if the creatures being tracked are unusual or not common then figuring out how many there are or what kind of creature they are might require proficiency in the survival skill reflecting time spent learning about different kinds of tracks and how to interpret the marks on the ground. Anyone could help with following the tracks, but only someone proficient could try to figure out numbers and nature of the creature if it is unusual.
Persuasion/Intimidation/Deception checks: Depending on the circumstance I will usually allow the help action if the player comes up with something useful to say that might influence the result (doesn't have to be wonderful, great or original) but just saying "I help character X persuade Y" doesn't usually cut it from a roleplaying perspective though I'll consider giving inspiration for making a good try (especially for players that have trouble with it).
Athletics: The wizard can always help the barbarian push the boulder/lift the gate/shove over the top of the crypt - though sometimes these are gated by a minimum total strength of the characters pushing. So a task requiring 30 total strength could be performed by 2 x 16 strength characters or 1 x 16 and 2 x8 strength characters - allowing them to make a check. (That mechanic is in some of the WotC published modules and seems pretty useful to use from time to time).
Acrobatics: Depending on what a character is doing, it would be rare for one character to be able to help another with an acrobatics check but I might allow it if the circumstances allowed one character to talk the other through doing something dextrous or they were using a rope or tools to assist with the check.
-----
The bottom line is that the DM decides when helping another makes sense. :)
I agree - always comes down to ruling. But the one for Athletics - how I would flavor that is - not so much that the wizard is pushing the rock - the Wizard would be using his mind, to understand the physics, of how to better push this rock - like, "Now, put a board right there, now a stick behind that boulder - that's going to get rid of the odd terrain, and push the boulder easier onto the flat surface of the board, making it easier to push once it's there. Yes, there. You got it."
Check out my publication on DMs Guild: https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?author=Tawmis%20Logue
Check out my comedy web series - Neverending Nights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wr4-u9-zw0&list=PLbRG7dzFI-u3EJd0usasgDrrFO3mZ1lOZ
Need a character story/background written up? I do it for free (but also take donations!) - https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?591882-Need-a-character-background-written-up
What you're looking for is a 4th edition skill challenge. Which was a great concept, though the implementation had issues.
This...exactly. No one enjoys spending countless hours because you failed a few checks to keep the adventure going.
We pretty much play AL only so it is the help action as long as your are proficient...and almost always someone has guidance as well.
I make it a group check and ask how they're assisting rather than the help action. I've seen a lot of attempts at "I help them for perma-advantage" and I have to veto it pretty quickly. That's like saying you're taking the Dodge action all the time so all surprise attacks have disadvantage
I often do out of combat help action by either having someone in my party treat a dieses a PC and/or NPC has, or stich someone's wounds or something like that.
Monsters: Brathkal
Weapons: Sword of Ni , Bow of Ni
Spells: Zone of Ni
I also love d̶̡̼̥̻͙̣̼̿͂͐͘ę̴̢̨̛̼̙̤̻̞̠̗̳̝̦̹̹̦͍̉̏͛̽͠͠sţ̵̢̼̹̭̖͔͎̞̪͇͚̞̇̀̇̀̒͂̇̍͊̏ru̸̮̭̪̠͆̑̍́̈́̑̾̒̑̂̕ͅc̶̢̜͓̮̩͎͕̄́͑̃̈͋̈͌̑̽͠ͅͅţ̵̢̼̹̭̖͔͎̞̪͇͚̞̇̀̇̀̒͂̇̍͊̏io̵̪̭̞̗̝͙̝̬̥͕̒ͅn̸̨͖̳͓͍̜̬̗̪̜̪̗̺͆̏̆̊́̈́̿̎̅̈͠͝͝ in my campaigns! In other words, i'm an evil DM.
Forgive me. I'm an old fart that can't figure out how to add a quote from a previous post. So here goes with the best I can do until I do more studying.
David42 said "A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves’ tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task."
First, I can't find that wording in the Player's Handbook. Is there another section where it makes that clarification?
Second, again, forgive me, but isn't that like saying you can't use a hammer or a screwdriver or a saw because you don't have proficiency with carpenter's tools or tinker's tools? Therefore, you can't hammer up planks across the window to keep the zombies out? Or you can't use a spatula to flip an egg because you don't have proficiency with cook's utensils? Therefore, you can't help another character make breakfast for a larger group? Obviously, without the proficiency (or even expertise) you wouldn't be able to build a decent piece of furniture, or make a gourmet meal. But wouldn't you still be able to drive a nail or cook a meager breakfast?
Your example of proficiency with thieves' tools does kind of make sense in that you probably wouldn't pick up a lockpick unless you have learned or intend to learn to use it. But I don't understand why someone can't have the option to try without the proficiency. I thought the whole concept of proficiency was that you were better at a skill because you worked at it. Doesn't that mean you can still use the tool without the proficiency, you just won't get as good results?
I apologize if I'm coming across as argumentative. I'm just trying to understand if I should be doing things differently in my games.
The use of Help action depend on the ability check used, what task is being achieved and how the help can occur. In my campaign it's not a guaranteed but more of a case by case. Just like some ability check can only be attempted if you're proficient in a Skill, some help can only happen under certain circumstances. I may ask myself ''is the active part from another may help contribute to the success of the task attemped?'' And ''Does it also require any proficiency from the helper?'' Tasks that can only be achieved alone like picking some lock for exemple may not be suitable for Help. Likewise, a task requiring proficiency in a specific tool or skill may also be required by the helper to even be possible.
Things like helping an ally lift a gate can be straightforward, but helping perceive may not be as appropriate, unless say you're facilitating perception somehow by muffling sound or clearring obscurement for exemple, Otherwise all it may do is provide a seperate task ability check attempt.
Sometimes the help is not directly doing the task but taking other shape, just like during attack where help involve hindering or distracting the target, help may be concentrated on the target, like in the context of Charisma check during performance or deception of some sort, or to persuade intimidate others where the helper can help cheer, distract, threat or mislead the target somehow.