D&D 5E Mitigating players spamming Help, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and oh I’ll roll too?

[5ekyu]

It might also be an indication that they all want to be involved whenever anything happens. In that case, maybe doing more combined skill checks or skill challenges, like a big elaborate trap where someone has to make a Strength check to turn the crank so that someone else can Acrobatics their way through the toothy door while two folks have to simultaneously operate levers in the same exact sequence (Int roll) to reroute the arnae blast that is headed the first character's way.

Yes... dont build skill task events around one guy making one roll for the win. We don't build combat challenges that way.

A locked door isnt normally a challenge to a heroic star - usually just a delay. A locked door with a guard that needs distracting and an alarm that needs disabling - that's a team effort and a challenge worthy of a team of skilled heroes.

Let's face it, by the time the gm goes thru the list of "no cant use guidance, no cant use inspiration, no cant help/work together" house rules the wizard just says "a crew this, I cast knock".

 

[Ristamar]

I don't allow Guidance for tasks that take longer than a minute or require multiple checks in quick succession unless the caster stays next to the target the whole time while constantly reciting a prayer.

 

[Seramus]

I don’t mind Guidance spam, but it has a V component, a S component, and neither of these are discreet. No, the S component is not the touch, you are making visible prayer gestures (or whatever) and chanting mystic words in whatever language your patron favors.

Talk to the player about what their Guidance looks like, and stick with it. Sometimes they will be able to use it freely. Sometimes it is going to make people angry or suspicious. Sometimes the NPC recognized the prayer and now the dice roller has advantage/disadvantage because they like/dislike that god.

 

[staticdrifter]

Help - Only works if the help is reasonably explained. Someone not knowing anything about picklocking cannot help picklocking a lock.

This is not necessarily true. While it may seem so at first glance, a cleric with absolutely no knowledge of lock picking may still aid a rogue who is picking a lock. The cleric may be simply holding a torch so the rogue can see better and thereby facilitate the opening of said lock.

The cleric must still make an assist check. If he is successful in his attempt, the rogue may add a +2 to his attempt to open the lock. Since the cleric has no knowledge of what the rogue is doing, or how he's doing it, a Critical success will not provide any additional help from the cleric beyond the +2 for a steady light.
If the cleric fails the roll, he does not hold the torch in a position which actually helps the rogue, but neither does it hinder him - no bonus to the rogue's skill check.
If, however, the cleric Critically fails his help check, the unfortunate rogue takes a -2 to his ability check due to his getting a bit too much light which hampers his vision, or perhaps the hapless cleric accidentally burns the poor rogue causing him to flinch and bend a lockpick, or worse, cry out in pain and alarm, giving away their presence to whomever, or whatever, lies beyond the locked door.

Assist/help checks do not always provide a positive outcome, but you don't have to know what your doing to "lend a hand".

Too often, players see these rolls as one-sided possibilities... if it works, great - if not, no skin off my nose.

As a DM, it's your right to take a little skin off them every now and then.

In my game, if a player always wants to assist, no matter what, I allow it. But, if the player fails the assist roll 3 times (similar types of assistance), they get a "clumsy" mark in that skill. Until the character raises that skill through training, all future assist rolls of that sort get a -2 penalty to the roll.

This tends to keep most of my players from getting help-happy.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

This is not necessarily true. While it may seem so at first glance, a cleric with absolutely no knowledge of lock picking may still aid a rogue who is picking a lock. The cleric may be simply holding a torch so the rogue can see better and thereby facilitate the opening of said lock.

That's not according to the rules, though.

To quote them:

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.

I think the rule are clear and simple enough, no need to add extra checks for it.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yes... dont build skill task events around one guy making one roll for the win. We don't build combat challenges that way.

A locked door isnt normally a challenge to a heroic star - usually just a delay. A locked door with a guard that needs distracting and an alarm that needs disabling - that's a team effort and a challenge worthy of a team of skilled heroes.

Let's face it, by the time the gm goes thru the list of "no cant use guidance, no cant use inspiration, no cant help/work together" house rules the wizard just says "a crew this, I cast knock".

While in principle that makes a lot of sense and is something I definitely aspire to incorporate in my DMing, in practice... in practice there are many instances in D&D where single PC / single skill check resolution is exactly what's called for (or at least is what has traditionally been called for in D&D's history).

How do you handle situations like a rogue picking a locked door or a locked treasure chest? These activities have, at least since AD&D if I remember right, been things that involved skill checks in some form. They're not necessarily "throw away checks" either, because there can be interesting consequences for failure: enemies hearing you, a poison needle, breaking a lock pick, etc.

Do you hand wave such instances with auto-success (i.e. "you fiddle with the lock and eventually slide your pick into the tumbler teeth until you hear that satisfying click...because that's what rogues do")? Or do you make every locked door or treasure chest in your game a skill challenge?

On a more meta level, combat has more tension and more decision points than opening a locked door or a locked chest. 30 minutes for a combat? We don't blink. 30 minutes to open a locked door or chest? That would be supremely aggravating! Of course, if it's a Stargate-like device opening a portal to the Lower Planes, well, then that has more narrative weight and certainly could involve multiple action steps & decision points... But sometimes a locked door or chest just makes sense, right? Rolf the butcher may not have a portal to the Abyss in his backroom, but he just may have a chest with confidential letters proving he's a spy for the cult, and perhaps a self-igniting mechanism to torch the evidence if the chest is improperly opened.

 

[ad_hoc]

How do you handle situations like a rogue picking a locked door or a locked treasure chest? These activities have, at least since AD&D if I remember right, been things that involved skill checks in some form. They're not necessarily "throw away checks" either, because there can be interesting consequences for failure: enemies hearing you, a poison needle, breaking a lock pick, etc.

The key part there is the consequence for failure.

An ability check is only called for if there are consequences. Usually this means springing a trap. It could also mean making noise, or even making it look like the lock wasn't tampered with.

Either way the lock is getting picked, unless it was impossible and then there is no check anyway. The only exception I can think of is when it needs to be picked right now like in the middle of combat. That is where the Thief ability comes in handy.

I also like traps to be interacted with instead of just rolling for damage. Sometimes this means giving a hint that they are going off with a chance to disarm. The Thief gets 2 attempts to disarm as they can disarm as a bonus action.

 

[Quickleaf]

This is not necessarily true. While it may seem so at first glance, a cleric with absolutely no knowledge of lock picking may still aid a rogue who is picking a lock. The cleric may be simply holding a torch so the rogue can see better and thereby facilitate the opening of said lock.

The cleric must still make an assist check. If he is successful in his attempt, the rogue may add a +2 to his attempt to open the lock. Since the cleric has no knowledge of what the rogue is doing, or how he's doing it, a Critical success will not provide any additional help from the cleric beyond the +2 for a steady light.
If the cleric fails the roll, he does not hold the torch in a position which actually helps the rogue, but neither does it hinder him - no bonus to the rogue's skill check.
If, however, the cleric Critically fails his help check, the unfortunate rogue takes a -2 to his ability check due to his getting a bit too much light which hampers his vision, or perhaps the hapless cleric accidentally burns the poor rogue causing him to flinch and bend a lockpick, or worse, cry out in pain and alarm, giving away their presence to whomever, or whatever, lies beyond the locked door.

Assist/help checks do not always provide a positive outcome, but you don't have to know what your doing to "lend a hand".

Too often, players see these rolls as one-sided possibilities... if it works, great - if not, no skin off my nose.

As a DM, it's your right to take a little skin off them every now and then.

In my game, if a player always wants to assist, no matter what, I allow it. But, if the player fails the assist roll 3 times (similar types of assistance), they get a "clumsy" mark in that skill. Until the character raises that skill through training, all future assist rolls of that sort get a -2 penalty to the roll.

This tends to keep most of my players from getting help-happy.

Just for clarification, I believe you're referring to 3rd edition rules for "Aid Another."

In 5e, the Help action is automatically successful:

Help
You can lend your aid to another creature in the completion of a task. When you take the Help action, the creature you aid gains advantage on the next ability check it makes to perform the task you are helping with, provided that it makes the check before the start of your next turn.

Alternatively, you can aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally’s attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with advantage.

Furthermore, the rules clarify the requirements of helping...

Working Together

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).

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 m ore individuals working together would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as threading a needle, are no easier with help.

I believe it was [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] who was saying that Help and Working Together are fundamentally different, the first only applying in combat and the latter only applying out of combat. However, that interpretation creates dissonance on the player's side – "why is it different?" – and even the language in the "Working Together" paragraph mentions the word "help" multiple times. When you start getting into arguments that, well, "help" isn't "Help" with a capital H, in my opinion that's a breakdown of the rules. And, essentially, they have the same effect: providing advantage.

The only question is, does 5e not have as stringent restrictions on who can Help as it does on who can Work Together? And if it's intentional that Working Together is more stringent out-of-combat, why is it that in combat Help is less stringent?

IMO, that makes no sense, so I interpret the "Working Together" paragraph as applying equally to the "Help" action, meaning it's the DM's prerogative to say: "Well, how are you helping your companion? Describe it to us." or "Well, you're not trained in thieves' tool, so just how are you helping him pick that lock?"

 

[5ekyu]

While in principle that makes a lot of sense and is something I definitely aspire to incorporate in my DMing, in practice... in practice there are many instances in D&D where single PC / single skill check resolution is exactly what's called for (or at least is what has traditionally been called for in D&D's history).

How do you handle situations like a rogue picking a locked door or a locked treasure chest? These activities have, at least since AD&D if I remember right, been things that involved skill checks in some form. They're not necessarily "throw away checks" either, because there can be interesting consequences for failure: enemies hearing you, a poison needle, breaking a lock pick, etc.

Do you hand wave such instances with auto-success (i.e. "you fiddle with the lock and eventually slide your pick into the tumbler teeth until you hear that satisfying click...because that's what rogues do")? Or do you make every locked door or treasure chest in your game a skill challenge?

On a more meta level, combat has more tension and more decision points than opening a locked door or a locked chest. 30 minutes for a combat? We don't blink. 30 minutes to open a locked door or chest? That would be supremely aggravating! Of course, if it's a Stargate-like device opening a portal to the Lower Planes, well, then that has more narrative weight and certainly could involve multiple action steps & decision points... But sometimes a locked door or chest just makes sense, right? Rolf the butcher may not have a portal to the Abyss in his backroom, but he just may have a chest with confidential letters proving he's a spy for the cult, and perhaps a self-igniting mechanism to torch the evidence if the chest is improperly opened.

In my games DC has a rationale and consistency - so the Dc is pretty much easily determined.

So a character picking a treasure chest or door lock might be seeing a 10, 15 or 20 in most cases - varying by what in essense biols down to skill of the maker. Some times that may adjust to 25 or down depending on assets, diligence, upkeep etc. etc.

Notice the level of the rogue, the fact that they have guidance etc do not apply to the DC.

So, it may well be that the rogue can easily beat the Dc20 especially if they are at reliable talent and have expertise on it. Thats a factor of the character ability and its not my job as Gm to change things up so that those checks always pose a challenge.

if its appropriate perhaps magical locks or runes to explode etc can be there.

So if they apply guidance - great - after all its someone calling on divine blessing - not providing their own skill. No roleplay needed - just cast it- thats what its for.

As for "working together" i have no problem with say working together to disarm a trap but probably most of the time working together on a lock might be difficult - just depends on the lock type and scenery. Really hard to get four hands to pick a normal lock - but if its say a safe lock - could be two sets of ears on the door listening for tumblers.

But i suppose at your core question - yeah - if the guidance and working together defeta the DC thats great in my book. its player characters using abilities to overcome a challenge.

The key thing is from my perspective as GM i *know* thats the case so i do not get heavily invested in a skill challenge thats as simple as one roll being a task that tasks the PCs.

After all, that chest lock - one knock spell.
That "hard to work together" - one Enhance ability lasts for an hour.
That foraging check - one goodberry feeds ten people for a day.

There are a ton of easy magical solutions for many of these "skill tasks" if the task is simple and a single roll without any complicating factors.

If i worked and reworked DCs time and time again to make these checks always a "challenge" not only am i nerfing the character growth (tier 1 vs tier 2 is pretty solid hallmarked by easily dealing with simpler tasks) but i am simply pushing them to not bother with those and instead work it with magics.

That said, if i wanted to make them challenging i can indeed rule the lock is a particularly complex one - multiple locking mechanisms and turn it into a trio save system - but again, unlikely for most cases.

maybe that answers your question but i think we have a fundamental difference on not just how to but whether or not skill tests should be a "threat" to a party at different levels and times. your poison needle trap chest could be a nice challenge for say 1st-4th level rogues - well - unless the wizard or arcane trickster uses mage hand to open it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

5e's skill system is utterly broken, and broken against the players. If I failed at my job as often as a 4th level expert in D&D failed at an 'easy' task, I think I'd probably get fired.

Given that, it seems obvious to me that if you're finding that castings of guidance, bardic inspiration or repeated attempts are breaking immersion you are calling for too many skill checks. If you think that someone reasonably good at a skill should not fail utterly to achieve a task, then don't call for a roll. The system does not support rolls for such things.