D&D (2024) Sharp shooter/Great Weapon Mastery

[Stalker0]

Bounded accuracy is the same, so why have we decided that an extra pair of hands is no longer enough help to grant advantage?

An extra pair of hands IS enough....as long as those hands are actually skilled at the task (aka proficiency). That's the difference that's being pursued in the new playtest, we are saying that help from a skilled person who knows what they are doing is strong enough to grant the bonus...and help from an untrained person who has little formal training is not.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I am wary of any rule that benefits the characters but doesn’t come with a cost or a risk.

On the other hand, the proficiency requirement adds complexity to skill choice. If before the incentive was to choose skills, as a team, to cover all bases, now there’s also an incentive to double up on some of them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Was it? I would have thought that your example was more just a straight strength check, rather than an athletics check, but that's fine if you intended it that way.

Okay?

Sure. It's more of a corner case than I thought you were describing.

You wanted "why is this a roll", I gave it. It doesn't matter why this specific example was a roll. The point was to give an example that could be done by two people without proficiency, in our real world, that makes sense. I just needed an example, the example itself barely matters except to provide the context.

No, I mean, that one's fine, it's just more corner-case than I'd worry too much about the rules needing to account for specifically. Your full scenario is "two people untrained try to carry something that is heavier than they should ought to based on their strength scores AND the DM has a reason in mind to make them need to roll for success". I'd expect the DM to make a call here. I think that it's covered in the playtest rules under "the DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible". Your scenario and any other similar one seems to me like most reasonable DMs would rule that the Help Action works. That's not the same as houserules.

I'm not trying to be difficult with you, I'm just trying to engage with you about it. Sure, I disagree with you (very mildly - I mean, I'm sure I'd be happy with a version of the rule that was worded in a way that was more to your liking, but I feel like this one is also fine).

sigh Fine, let's make more examples.

Acrobatics includes the ability to stay on your feet on ice. Do I need to be a trained acrobat to offer my arm and support someone walking on ice, to help make sure they don't fall? This is something I did for YEARS with my grandmother.

Strength checks include pushing through a tunnel that is too small. Do I need to be trained in athletics to shove them from behind and assist them in getting through tunnel?

Dexterity checks include wriggling free of ropes that you are bound in. Do I need to be trained in sleight of hand to assist someone while I am tied up, by grabbing an end of the rope and acting as an anchor point, or helping to try and loosen a knot?

Investigation checks include helping someone search a room. I don't need to be trained in Investigation to search a room, so why do I need to be trained in investigation to help someone search a room? We often call upon other people to help search for something we have lost, because more people searching makes it more likely to be found.

Intelligence checks include winning at games of skill. First of all, the phrasing of the help action as requiring a Skill Proficiency means that, per RAW, I can't use my proficiency in the Gaming Set to perform the help action, because that is a tool proficiency. However, we are all also gamers, we are very aware that two people who are not skilled at a game can work together and lead to better gaming results than either of them alone. People help each other all the time with games they are unfamiliar with.

Medicine checks are used for stabilizing someone. Sure, I wouldn't allow someone not trained in medicine to perform surgery or make medicine, but how often in movies have we seen a terrified civilian grabbed and told to "put pressure on the wound" as the other person performs the tasks needed to save the character's life. That is a classic help action, the additional hands are incredibly useful, and they require zero medical training. Heck, I job shadowed a vet for a paper once and I, with no vet training, was asked to help hold a dog to make the vet's job easier. Why is that no longer allowed?

Intimidation, Persuasion and Deception can all be aided by simply backing the other person's claim, by adding your own words to their attempt. One person is easier to ignore and dismiss than two or three telling you the same thing. Again, you don't need proficiency in these skills to attempt those rolls, so why do you need proficiency in them to attempt to aid in those rolls?



Sure, each one of these may be a corner case. But when you can trivially find eight corners that have cases, many of them things you have directly encountered, it becomes less and less of a "minor" concern, and more and more of a systematic issue. Which generally come back to the same point. I don't need proficiency in the skill to attempt the check, so why do I need it to attempt to assist? That and the toold profs, which I didn't even consider until I went digging for more examples, and seems like a MAJOR oversight.

That's not what I'm advocating. It's not homebrewing - it's following the rule "the DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible" in a scenario when NO ONE is skilled. Otherwise, if only one of the PCs involved is skilled, then by the playtest rule, THEY Help the unskilled one to do the task, AFAICT.

See, but I don't think that line was meant to rule on allowing someone without the skill prof to use the help action. I think it was far more about things like "You can't help the mage remember his schooling" or "You can't help the rogue insight this person" because those actions can often not make sense in the narrative. IF they meant to allow people without the prof to help... then they wouldn't have added in as a requirement, instead they could have added towards the end "The DM may require a skill proficiency to use the Help action for certain d20 tests." Make THAT the exception, for those exceptionally skilled tests, like singing or performing surgery that would require being more highly skilled to aid.

I didn't ask you to rewrite it. And I'm not asking you not to discuss it. I'm discussing it with you. I'm not sure the problem you're trying to point out is, in fact, a problem, and I felt like talking to you about it might make me understand it more fully. I disagree not to shut you down, but to find out more about your perspective.

Sorry, I've been dealing with a lot of people who have been trying to shut down conversation, which made me a bit prickly.

 

[Chaosmancer]

An extra pair of hands IS enough....as long as those hands are actually skilled at the task (aka proficiency). That's the difference that's being pursued in the new playtest, we are saying that help from a skilled person who knows what they are doing is strong enough to grant the bonus...and help from an untrained person who has little formal training is not.

Which I'm saying makes no sense. Checks that could be attempted without the skill proficiency in the first place should be able to be assisted without the skill proficiency. There are things that I can do to aid someone in successfully completing their task, that greatly increases they chances of success, without having to be a highly trained professional.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am wary of any rule that benefits the characters but doesn’t come with a cost or a risk.

Why should we be wary of teamwork?

On the other hand, the proficiency requirement adds complexity to skill choice. If before the incentive was to choose skills, as a team, to cover all bases, now there’s also an incentive to double up on some of them.

Not at all. The rule simply states you need to pick A skill proficiency. You are not required to pick the same skill proficiency as the check is being made with. By RAW I could use my proficiency in performance to provide the help action to someone performing a medicine check. The only limit is whether or not the DM accepts, which is just DM fiat.

So, there is no incentive to double up, unless you know you will be making specific checks consistently that the DM will not allow other proficiencies to work for, and you will need two of the same skill proficiency. Which requires a level of foreknowledge I rarely have in games I've played in.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Why should we be wary of teamwork?

I didn't say we should be wary of teamwork. I said I am wary of rules that provide benefit with no cost/risk. This example happens to involve teamwork.

You and I apparently have completely divergent ideas of what makes a game fun. Or even a game. So there's no "we" here.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

You wanted "why is this a roll", I gave it. It doesn't matter why this specific example was a roll. The point was to give an example that could be done by two people without proficiency, in our real world, that makes sense. I just needed an example, the example itself barely matters except to provide the context.

Yes, I understood that. Your argument makes sense. The trouble is, they made this change because of all the situations on the other side where Help only makes sense if the helper knows what they're doing. I'm sure you or I (or someone else) could come up with as many (if not more) scenarios where that would be true as you managed to do here for your case.

See, but I don't think that line was meant to rule on allowing someone without the skill prof to use the help action.

I think it was. I think it's "use this rule unless it doesn't make sense, then make a ruling".

IF they meant to allow people without the prof to help... then they wouldn't have added in as a requirement, instead they could have added towards the end "The DM may require a skill proficiency to use the Help action for certain d20 tests." Make THAT the exception, for those exceptionally skilled tests, like singing or performing surgery that would require being more highly skilled to aid.

I guess we're faced with two problems:

1) Sometimes it makes sense that any second pair of hands will help.
2) Sometimes it only makes sense that a skilled person could help.

Which is more common? I guess it depends on playstyle, a bit, and also on how helpful you want the Help Action to be. With the changes to Guidance, it seems like they might be trying to make additional bonusses (like extra d4's and Advantage) a little rarer than they can be in a lot of games. Perhaps full-on advantage for Help is a little much for just an extra pair of hands. Perhaps it's not so much that the extra hands don't help narratively (even if they don't help mechanically) but that they don't help enough to grant *advantage (a big bonus).

So what to do? This is a problem with the entire skill system, as there's not a lot of guidance on when "trained only" checks are important over untrained, and exactly how much you can accomplish without tools (for example, with the playtest, if Lockpicking is a Sleight-of-Hand check, and Thieves' Tools give you Advantage on that check, what does that mean if you *don't have any thieves' tools? Can you pick a lock? Obviously that's silly, but will a dagger do? A toothpick? Where is the line?)

I'm not sure which is better, myself. The playtest way, or the "old" way. Both result in scenarios that need DM rulings. Which one would be more common? My gut says the Playtest would cover more ground at my table, but you've made a good case for the old version. Perhaps they can come up with some sort of hybrid, but I can't imagine it would make for less DM rulings - but maybe it could make for better guidance for a DM.

Sorry, I've been dealing with a lot of people who have been trying to shut down conversation, which made me a bit prickly.

No worries! It's tough communicating by text.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Which I'm saying makes no sense. Checks that could be attempted without the skill proficiency in the first place should be able to be assisted without the skill proficiency. There are things that I can do to aid someone in successfully completing their task, that greatly increases they chances of success, without having to be a highly trained professional.

See, here you are advocating for Advantage being easy to get. Any hands will do.

Out of curiosity, do you use the optional Flanking rules? I don't, because in spite of feeling that multiple attackers (I've experienced it IRL) is a dangerous place to find yourself in, I think that Advantage is too good. Besides, you're pretty much screwed in D&D when you're surrounded anyhow.

Not at all. The rule simply states you need to pick A skill proficiency. You are not required to pick the same skill proficiency as the check is being made with.

You're mistaken here. It says "Choose one of your Skill Proficiencies and one ally who can see or hear you. You give Advantage to the next Ability Check that ally makes with the chosen Skill.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Best way, would be stating: the DM decides if you need proficiency in the chosen skill to help with the task.
But that would earn criticism from mother may I critics...

Maybe: if you help, you need to make an ability check against DC - 10 if you lack the relevant skill proficiency.

This way most cases would be covered. Helping in stabilizing? DC is 10. So the helper needs to make a check vs DC 0. Assisting with balance?
If you are standing on Ice yourself, making the check vs DC 5 might be feasible... and so on.

But I prefer: the DM decides if help is possible or a proficiency or a check is needed to assist.

 

[Stalker0]

Which I'm saying makes no sense. Checks that could be attempted without the skill proficiency in the first place should be able to be assisted without the skill proficiency. There are things that I can do to aid someone in successfully completing their task, that greatly increases they chances of success, without having to be a highly trained professional.

It is also true that fighting two people front and back is a lot harder than two people in front of you...but there is no flanking.

Fighting from high ground is also a benefit in combat....but there is no bonus.

Fighting with a large backpack of crap makes it much harder to fight someone...but there is no penalty for all of the stuff PCs carry.


There are LOTs of things in the game that aren't tracked in the spirit of streamlining and providing a good model for the game. Now I can respect you hate this one, but it makes just as much sense as anything else not tracked or recorded in the game.