The help action is not broken, but Working together is

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I ask the player to describe how they are helping. Depending on their answer, I might grant Advantage or lower the DC, or do nothing.

Real example from my game table recently: Bixby (the rogue) was opening a locked chest. Chux (monk) wanted to help.

Bixby: "I take out my Thieves' Tools and begin picking the lock."
Chux: "I help, he gets Advantage."
Me: "Not so fast. Bixby is already trying his very best, and you might just get in the way. Describe what you are doing to help him succeed."
Chux: "Um...I shush everyone else in the party and make it real quiet, so that he can focus. You know, minimize distractions for him."
DM: "Perfect. Bix, make a Dex check with Advantage."
Bixby: "Sweet!" *high-fives the monk*

(Full disclosure: I almost always grant Advantage in these situations....but the players don't know that. I just don't like it when players try to use the rules as a substitution for roleplaying. Just calling out "I give him Advantage" won't cut it, but just about any reasonable action will.)

TL;DR: I don't want them to just read me the rules, I want them to describe their actions.

dave2008 said:

Yes, that is true - but it is a good rule of thumb for us. Obviously, the beauty of a TTRPG is that it is easy to review these on a case by case basis.

Click to expand...

dave2008 said:

I don't think it is a bad rule, in general I think is quite good (better than the simpler approach I've been using anyway). It doesn't cover all cases, but seems to cover must of them that would actually warrant gaining advantage. 5e assumes the DM can adjudicate corner cases, though I guess they could have explained that part more. The point of the restriction is so that you can't simply gain advantage on every check.

Click to expand...

My point wasn’t clear. IMO, there are more “corner cases” than times where the rule works better than the other way. Using careful examination to help your ally pick a lock makes sense, as does turning into a tiny creature and peering inside and then sketching what you saw. Maybe your players aren’t discouraged from such things by the rule, but most new players I’ve met would be. Better to simply ask what they do, and decide if what they describe makes sense, regardless of any skills that do or don’t get brought up.

doctorbadwolf said:

My point wasn’t clear. IMO, there are more “corner cases” than times where the rule works better than the other way. Using careful examination to help your ally pick a lock makes sense, as does turning into a tiny creature and peering inside and then sketching what you saw. Maybe your players aren’t discouraged from such things by the rule, but most new players I’ve met would be. Better to simply ask what they do, and decide if what they describe makes sense, regardless of any skills that do or don’t get brought up.

Click to expand...

In my experience, most players don’t actually read the rules, beyond those that are directly relevant to their character, so I don’t know as it matters much one way or the other. That said, the best alternative might be if the rule was written a bit more flexibly, like “A character might not be able to help in a task that they couldn’t perform themselves - for example, a character who doesn’t have proficiency with thieves’ tools lacks the expertise to be of much help to a character trying to pick a lock in most circumstances. However, there may be other circumstances where such expertise is not necessary to be of assistance. The DM is the final arbiter of whether or not a character’s efforts to help constitute advantage on another character’s roll.”

I think most people miss my point.

They discuss "is it realistic to hand out advantage".

I am pointing out that when a module says you need to make a DC 10 Perception test to find the whatever, that means any Commoner will passively find it, every single time.

In other words, it is not hidden at all.

Same with making a DC 13 Persuasion check. Okay, so you can't make that test passively, but the point man is likely to have a +7 modifier even at the lowest levels, and the party is likely to have at least a +1d4 bonus from somewhere (such as bless).

Just the idea that the group should also be allowed to get advantage on the check is mind-boggling. Why do we even make checks if there is no real risk of failure?

In module after module, skill DCs are consistently extremely low, and even without advantage, my players' characters routinely make these checks.

Sure you CAN have a group of players that don't understand to distribute the basic "roles" within the party: scout and face are the two biggest. The rules absoultely must accomodate groups that have played D&D before, and immediately create one character of a high-Wisdom class take Perception as a skill (instant +7 modifier even at level 1), and another of a high-Charisma class with Persuasion proficiency.

These things are not rocket science. The very idea the game shouldn't be calibrated for basic player skill offends me.

Then you get into situations at higher levels where the Bard auto-succeeds at everything involving persuasion, because Inspire dice are just as unbalanced out of combat as is Work Together. And the Rogue automatically detecting and disarming every trap, making you shake your head: why even bother including all that stuff when you give the players the tools to utterly trivialize everything.

Let's next look at it from an optimizer's angle.

Maxxing out a skill check (saving throw, attack roll) is supposed to be satisfying. But if the game just gives you advantage freely, there is no satisfaction. If you don't have to work for it, there's nothing to be proud of.

That is why we've ditched Inspiration, for instance. If you gain advantage from first casting a spell, or tactically positioning yourself, or from teamwork, that's D&D as I recognise it.

Gaining advantage just because is, for want of a better word, lame.

So, no. No inspiration, no "lemme help" free advantage, and D&D is a better game, since now you actually have to play it.

If you want to play the social pillar on easy mode you bring a bard who doesn't waste his Inspire dice in combat (where it is balanced) and instead spend it out of combat (where it is gamewrecking).

If you want to play the explore pillar on easy mode you bring a Ranger whose class features says "you can't get lost". A Rogues whose Reliable talent basically wipes traps off the table since no trap ever has a higher DC than what he achieves on automatic.

Why even have rules if there's no challenge? Why not then admit you're having a round of storytelling?

Tl;dr: instead of faffing about with all these rules, how about throwing it all out and instead say roll a d20:
1: real failure (of the old-school kind)
2-9: you succeed "but..."
10-19: basic success
20: critical success

Unless you do what I tell you to, and dismantle all the easiest paths to bonuses, that is what D&D amounts to nowadays.

Now get off my lawn.

Charlaquin said:

In my experience, most players don’t actually read the rules, beyond those that are directly relevant to their character, so I don’t know as it matters much one way or the other. That said, the best alternative might be if the rule was written a bit more flexibly, like “A character might not be able to help in a task that they couldn’t perform themselves - for example, a character who doesn’t have proficiency with thieves’ tools lacks the expertise to be of much help to a character trying to pick a lock in most circumstances. However, there may be other circumstances where such expertise is not necessary to be of assistance. The DM is the final arbiter of whether or not a character’s efforts to help constitute advantage on another character’s roll.”

Click to expand...

I’d prefer “When a character wants to help another character, the players should describe how they are working together on the task. Some tasks do not lend themselves to multiple participants, and some tasks may require that any participant must be able to attempt the task on their own. More often, a helping hand needs to have a proficiency or other competency, such as impossibly physique represented by high Strength used to assist an Intimidation attempt, in order to work with the person making the roll. The DM is the final blah blah we all know but let’s repreat this after every other rule anyway.”

@CapnZapp I think this is a case where most folks here just aren’t experiencing the thing you are experiencing. IME, most people aren’t running the modules nearly as much as just making adventures on their own, most of their gameplay doesn’t feature rogues with reliable talent, their exploration challenges are more complex than “don’t get lost or starve to death”, and they don’t actually always have someone with +7 in more than a couple skills at low level, and their players aren’t optimizing enough to assume that +7 is in “the right” skills.

edit: heck, I’ve seen groups with no bars or rogue, and no low level maxed out stats, meaning no one has a +7 on anything.

doctorbadwolf said:

IME, most people aren’t running the modules nearly as much as just making adventures on their own

Click to expand...

Call me crazy but I expect the rules to support the official adventures.

CapnZapp said:

I think most people miss my point.

They discuss "is it realistic to hand out advantage".

I am pointing out that when a module says you need to make a DC 10 Perception test to find the whatever, that means any Commoner will passively find it, every single time.

In other words, it is not hidden at all.

Same with making a DC 13 Persuasion check. Okay, so you can't make that test passively, but the point man is likely to have a +7 modifier even at the lowest levels, and the party is likely to have at least a +1d4 bonus from somewhere (such as bless).

Just the idea that the group should also be allowed to get advantage on the check is mind-boggling. Why do we even make checks if there is no real risk of failure?

Click to expand...

Your are suggesting a rules change to address an adventure design issue. You are approaching it as if the adventure is right, and the rules are broken or don't make sense in light of the adventure. That's backwards.

You have a set of rules. You then create an adventure that, within the rules, gives the level of challenge you desire.

Which is to say - if the adventures have DCs that you find too easy, just change the DCs, and leave the rules be, allowing them to encourage more creative and dynamic play.

CapnZapp said:

I think most people miss my point.

They discuss "is it realistic to hand out advantage".

I am pointing out that when a module says you need to make a DC 10 Perception test to find the whatever, that means any Commoner will passively find it, every single time.

In other words, it is not hidden at all.

Same with making a DC 13 Persuasion check. Okay, so you can't make that test passively, but the point man is likely to have a +7 modifier even at the lowest levels, and the party is likely to have at least a +1d4 bonus from somewhere (such as bless).

Just the idea that the group should also be allowed to get advantage on the check is mind-boggling. Why do we even make checks if there is no real risk of failure?

In module after module, skill DCs are consistently extremely low, and even without advantage, my players' characters routinely make these checks.

Sure you CAN have a group of players that don't understand to distribute the basic "roles" within the party: scout and face are the two biggest. The rules absoultely must accomodate groups that have played D&D before, and immediately create one character of a high-Wisdom class take Perception as a skill (instant +7 modifier even at level 1), and another of a high-Charisma class with Persuasion proficiency.

These things are not rocket science. The very idea the game shouldn't be calibrated for basic player skill offends me.

Then you get into situations at higher levels where the Bard auto-succeeds at everything involving persuasion, because Inspire dice are just as unbalanced out of combat as is Work Together. And the Rogue automatically detecting and disarming every trap, making you shake your head: why even bother including all that stuff when you give the players the tools to utterly trivialize everything.

Let's next look at it from an optimizer's angle.

Maxxing out a skill check (saving throw, attack roll) is supposed to be satisfying. But if the game just gives you advantage freely, there is no satisfaction. If you don't have to work for it, there's nothing to be proud of.

That is why we've ditched Inspiration, for instance. If you gain advantage from first casting a spell, or tactically positioning yourself, or from teamwork, that's D&D as I recognise it.

Gaining advantage just because is, for want of a better word, lame.

So, no. No inspiration, no "lemme help" free advantage, and D&D is a better game, since now you actually have to play it.

If you want to play the social pillar on easy mode you bring a bard who doesn't waste his Inspire dice in combat (where it is balanced) and instead spend it out of combat (where it is gamewrecking).

If you want to play the explore pillar on easy mode you bring a Ranger whose class features says "you can't get lost". A Rogues whose Reliable talent basically wipes traps off the table since no trap ever has a higher DC than what he achieves on automatic.

Why even have rules if there's no challenge? Why not then admit you're having a round of storytelling?

Tl;dr: instead of faffing about with all these rules, how about throwing it all out and instead say roll a d20:
1: real failure (of the old-school kind)
2-9: you succeed "but..."
10-19: basic success
20: critical success

Unless you do what I tell you to, and dismantle all the easiest paths to bonuses, that is what D&D amounts to nowadays.

Now get off my lawn.

Click to expand...

Wow... where to start... at the end i guess...

its my lawn when i play, not yours, not WOTCs.

The key to that is that *if* i choose to run a module and *if* i choose to leave a trap in a spot and *if* i choose to leave it at a DC 10 to spot then it is *my* trap now and my choice that it is that easy to spot and guess what... thats fine if thats what i want it to be. Now i should describe, narrate and play it through just so.

maybe its a trap left alone and not watched over/maintained and thats why its easily spotted - like say in an abandoned ruin and we now have crap growing up through the gaps between a trapdoor or lots of water stains from rains that show the edges.

maybe its actually meant to be easily spotted - cuz we sometimes have our own folks strolling around - but a rug or carpet can be used to hide it better when we have a means to go "on alert".

maybe, like perhaps many "traps" would be, its not meant as a passive threat to "challenge" a party on its own but part of a defensive scheme - cutting off or slowing down a group trying to go that route in a hurry.

Consider - passive perception checks *require* iirc the character not be doing anything else... so such a trap down a corridor or in an area where the "attackers" might be moving while under fire and while doing stuff means - they can not get a PPer auto. Additionally, if they are running or dashing and so on its perfectly reasonable to provide as Gm "disadvantage" on the "did you spot a trap" check which again takes the DC 10 into a chance of failure.

I think what is perhaps the most obvious thing to me about this position is its like it was somehow pre-ordained the possibility that a DC 10 trap is not a challenge is somehow counter to the "way it should be" and that the DC 10 meaning "easy to avoid if not under any sort of pressure" is a flaw instead of an intent representing part of the scene or event.

A much simpler alternative perspective is that the DC 10 trap is like a single goblin - its not really a threat on its own and is not gonna be a challenge to the party of first level guys or even a group of four commoners - but it is something that can be a problem if you handle it wrong or the circumstances are right.


In my lawn - i set DC 10 for traps and such when appropriate and narrate it as more nuisance than threat for whatever reason made me give it a 10 in the first place - but more often than not those are really more accurately not "traps" as much as they are "hazards" whether deliberately put in place or not.
---

Regarding the Dc 13 persuasion skill check - that represents a check between "easy" and "medium" difficulty - so its something that is not supposed to be too tough - so its not like "i want you to go kill your own family" right? Thats the key - difficulty needs to match the "task" not some arbitrary notion that every roll needs to be "challenging". You are going off on how this means its mind boggling that the Dc would be this low - but that is without mentioning what it is doing? is it DC 13 to bribe a corrupt and greedy goblin to let you slip into the camp? That seems likely fine to me. or intimidate a cowardly one? again, sounds right to me.

Attempting to divorce the "DC" and "odds of success" from "what the task is" and construe it as a problem... and thats like asking "is a tablespoon of salt too much to put in beef stew" when you do not know if its a single serving, a six quart pot or a 10 gallon stew pot for a food line.

"Why do we even make checks if there is no real risk of failure?"

The game rules say you shouldn't. If you are, then thats a problem with your lawn.

You then presume bless and inspire dice and on and on and on...

But, at a basic level you have missed one of the most known aspects of RPGs since modules have been around - ort you havent missed it and are deliberately ignoring it because you want to spew rage on how bad this or that is...

Since like the first modules ever, it has been acknowledged - usually in the module - that the Gm needs to adjust the module to fit his characters and campaign. one size never fits all. Its the Gms job to assess the module and his game and his crew and see "is this a good fit or is this lawn too mushy for my guys or is it too rough for my guys." They then need to adjust accordingly. Whether that skew is from more/fewer PCs, higher/lower levels, more/fewer magic items, higher/lower ability scores or yes even lower/higher degree of expertise at the gameplay and builds - its on the Gm to own the game and adjust the "fast food" module when necessary.

I mean, if your group was six people strong you wouldn't go buy four dinners for them because the module said "buy for four", right?

I think, maybe just me, its patently obvious that modules are not built to be specced out for a "degree of difficulty" designed to be "challenging to a top notch minmaxed group." One i can remember to a small degree was Tomb of horros iirc? But its been forever since i looked at that. Modules are built for more casual play level - likely even pick-up games and their degree of difficulty is tuned to that.

Just liie most commercailly available meals, if one wants its extra spicy, extra hot - one has to usually add spice themselves cuz its rare that the mainstream stuff is heated to their tastes.

Sorry - but - thats because most of the folks who just pick-up a module and run it without checking and tweaking are - likely - at that level of play.

If a gm/player wants a hard-core, high-difficulty "hard mode" game geared to high end (or even medium end) optimizers and tacticians - they gotta go on and be/find a Gm who is willing to do the work and put in that effort to tune a session or a module to fit that... which maybe some GMs are not given the apparent fervor some show over the modules not already doing it for them.

But, thats my lawn and i am sticking to it.

doctorbadwolf said:

@CapnZapp I think this is a case where most folks here just aren’t experiencing the thing you are experiencing. IME, most people aren’t running the modules nearly as much as just making adventures on their own, most of their gameplay doesn’t feature rogues with reliable talent, their exploration challenges are more complex than “don’t get lost or starve to death”, and they don’t actually always have someone with +7 in more than a couple skills at low level, and their players aren’t optimizing enough to assume that +7 is in “the right” skills.

edit: heck, I’ve seen groups with no bars or rogue, and no low level maxed out stats, meaning no one has a +7 on anything.

Click to expand...

yup - i have seen parties without clerics - which means if i choose an undead heavy module - i gotta do what GMs have been expected to do since the time of the first modules - adjust the module for my game and where my group deviates from the norm.

I mean, sure, one can go onto the web and rail and moan and gripe and complain that the modules are too easy "when my party of twelve PCs takes them on" and go on and on and on and on... and keep pretending that the module wasn't actually made with the assumption of 12 PCs... but more like 4.

But after a while of people pointing that out... and the railing and moaning and griping keeps going... one has to believe folks get the idea it might actually not be a problem with the module or the rules...

Gms running real games week-in week-out get a lot more done for their players than is done with these... "discussions."