Why doesn't the help action have more limits and down sides?

Tony Vargas · Jun 12, 2018

iserith said:
For any task with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful chance of failure where one could try the same approach to a goal repeatedly, the player can trade time in the amount of 10x the normal amount of time it takes to complete the task for automatic success.

Nod, I'd just as soon narrate success, at that point, or cut to the chase and have the roll determine not success/failure, but time (or some other resource) to accomplish.

DM Dave1 said:
To put an abrupt end to the "piling on" effect [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] describes above, we've been employing Angry's rules for Teamwork and Group Checks (http://theangrygm.com/tweaking-the-core-of-dd-5e/). It has worked out quite well in multiple campaigns.

Mostly a very on-the-money article, though I disagree a bit about the topic of group checks.
One thing I think was missed that the multiple d20 rolls of a repeated check that only needs one success to win or, very alternately, one failure to blow, is that, while they may make superficial sense, narratively, statistically they add up to near-certain success or failure, respectively, and not because of the best or worst character in the party (that becomes almost meaningless) as 'weakest link,' but just because of the sheer number of rolls - it's an obvious/intuitive bit of modeling that fails as a model of uncertainty.
That's why Group Checks actually make a fair bit of sense: they give the party a reasonable chance of success at a group task, whether that's reaching a consensus on a knowledge check (rather than just trusting the 'expert' with the best check), or reaching the other side of the cavern without waking a dragon.

neogod22 · Jun 12, 2018

DM Dave1 said:
To put an abrupt end to the "piling on" effect [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] describes above, we've been employing Angry's rules for Teamwork and Group Checks (http://theangrygm.com/tweaking-the-core-of-dd-5e/). It has worked out quite well in multiple campaigns.

The problem with the group check idea is, while the idea may be sound, it makes players feel left out. If you tell the cleric in platemail and a shield to make a stealth check for the group, the rogue might get pissed.

Shiroiken · Jun 12, 2018

Keravath said:
You might want to keep in mind that advantage is equivalent to a +5 on the die roll on average so a "1" result in your table is better than a 2 or 3 which doesn't make much sense.

Perhaps I should have clarified: it's advantage AND +x, not just +x. I will edit my post accordingly.

Umbran · Jun 12, 2018

GameOgre said:
The help action doesn't require a roll of any sort so it's always successful and never hinders the character being helped and that's just flat out wrong.

You may be conflating/confusing the mechanic and resulting narrative.

The mechanic gives a benefit. But, the overall check *may still fail*. That place where the guy helping made it worse is *within* that chance of failure. You can narrate it as "the two of you just aren't enough" or as "you almost had it, and then clueless here reversed the polarity of the neutron flow, and it gets botched."

Swarmkeeper · Jun 12, 2018

neogod22 said:
The problem with the group check idea is, while the idea may be sound, it makes players feel left out. If you tell the cleric in platemail and a shield to make a stealth check for the group, the rogue might get pissed.

No one should feel left out. The rogue can simply be the one to come up with the stealthy idea for keeping the cleric from clanking around. A really clever idea might allow for Advantage or Inspiration on top of the bonuses. Or maybe the group needs to come up with a plan B that doesn't involve every character getting their stealth on at the same time.

jgsugden · Jun 12, 2018

D&D is simplified system. The simple mechanics do not have to match the complex story.

What we see at the table: Bob wants to look for traps. Tim helps. Bob rolls a perception check with advantage, but fails.

What the DM can describe: "Bob, as you approach the door with Tim at your side you see a floor stone that looks to have scuffs along the edges, as if it has been pushed into the floor several times. You point it out to Tim and he decides to take a closer look... which results in him stepping on a different pressure plate stone and setting off the trap."

Swarmkeeper · Jun 12, 2018

Tony Vargas said:
Mostly a very on-the-money article, though I disagree a bit about the topic of group checks.
One thing I think was missed that the multiple d20 rolls of a repeated check that only needs one success to win or, very alternately, one failure to blow, is that, while they may make superficial sense, narratively, statistically they add up to near-certain success or failure, respectively, and not because of the best or worst character in the party (that becomes almost meaningless) as 'weakest link,' but just because of the sheer number of rolls - it's an obvious/intuitive bit of modeling that fails as a model of uncertainty.
That's why Group Checks actually make a fair bit of sense: they give the party a reasonable chance of success at a group task, whether that's reaching a consensus on a knowledge check (rather than just trusting the 'expert' with the best check), or reaching the other side of the cavern without waking a dragon.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your interpretation, but Angry doesn't advocate for everyone rolling or for repeated checks - if that's what you are saying. He says one d20 roll for the group with the appropriate bonuses, penalties, Disadvantage, Advantage all figured in. Success (or failure) is certainly not guaranteed in the way it would be when you get cascading "pile on" rolls from one player to the next.

Your Group Check way works as well. All players roll and, if most make it, the group makes it - again, if I am reading you right.

Angry's method is a simplification of the process and saves time - all the math is done on a single roll, rather than every player adjudicating a d20 roll. In our party of 7, I prefer Angry's way.

Tony Vargas · Jun 12, 2018

DM Dave1 said:
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your interpretation, but Angry doesn't advocate for everyone rolling or for repeated checks - if that's what you are saying.

Nope, I got that he has in mind one roll - from the best for the first case, and the worst for the second. It's his reasoning to get there - that the 'important' check is the best/worst. Rather, it's the sheer number of checks that make an intuitive/old-school 'everybody rolls' knowledge or stealth check problematic.

Your Group Check way works as well. All players roll and, if most make it, the group makes it - again, if I am reading you right.

That's the regular group check introduced in 4e and retained in 5e, yes.

Angry's method is a simplification of the process and saves time - all the math is done on a single roll, rather than every player adjudicating a d20 roll.

5e doesn't have a lot of modifiers, and comparing a number of rolls to one DC isn't particularly time-consuming - vs one roll with more modifiers - so I don't see a big advantage - what I do see is one player singled out vs everyone participating in the resolution, which might or might not be desirable in the context of the group in general or the story in that moment...

Swarmkeeper · Jun 12, 2018

Tony Vargas said:
Nope, I got that he has in mind one roll - from the best for the first case, and the worst for the second. It's his reasoning to get there - that the 'important' check is the best/worst. Rather, it's the sheer number of checks that make an intuitive/old-school 'everybody rolls' knowledge or stealth check problematic.

Ah - right - got it. My end of workday brain is a bit fried.

Tony Vargas said:
5e doesn't have a lot of modifiers, and comparing a number of rolls to one DC isn't particularly time-consuming - vs one roll with more modifiers - so I don't see a big advantage - what I do see is one player singled out vs everyone participating in the resolution, which might or might not be desirable in the context of the group or the story...

Sounds good in theory. You must not have multiple "slow counters" at your table. Must be nice.

I know rolling dice is fun, but it certainly isn't the only way to participate. "Clanky the Cleric, make the stealth roll - but before you do, the rest of you describe what you are doing to help Clanky be less, er, himself..." One might say this is allowing the players to be even more involved in the story than just rolling a die and adding a modifier. Anyway, I agree with what you said - might or might not be desirable depending on the context...

ClaytonCross · Jun 12, 2018

Satyrn said:
Maybe you could use the additional d20 provided by helping to model this, story-wise, by having the helping player roll that second die, and then narrating the effectiveness based on who rolled what.

Like, if the helper's d20 was the only successful one, then he clearly contributed greatly to the other's success. And when both rolls fail, you could narrate that as the helper getting in the way like you describe.

lol, Great minds think a like... Well maybe in your case a great mind and mine an addled twisted mind that has an occasional good thought. I said the same thing but less clearly on the first page of this thread.

Why doesn't the help action have more limits and down sides?

Tony Vargas

Legend

neogod22

Explorer

Shiroiken

Legend

Umbran

Mod Squad

Swarmkeeper

Hero

jgsugden

Legend

Swarmkeeper

Hero

Tony Vargas

Legend

Swarmkeeper

Hero

ClaytonCross

Kinder reader Inflection wanted

Similar Threads