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

[staticdrifter]

That's not according to the rules, though.

To quote them:


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

That's the problem with 5th, the Rules are too simple, but nowhere near clear enough. The rules quoted contradict each other on a fundamental level, if not a literal one, which is par for the course in D&D books, hence the idea that they are more guidelines than rules.

 

[staticdrifter]

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

In 5e, the Help action is automatically successful:



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

Working Together


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?"

Since we are speaking in terms of DMing the situation, the terminology is semantic in nature. The situation calls for more advanced ruling than simple "follow the rules" decisions. The modified method allows for more sensible player interaction.
5th ed rules tend toward cookie-cutter solutions in many situations and far too many modern DMs try to run the game with no thought to what may actually be plausible because "it's in the book".

In many cases involving skill checks, allowing your players to interact together, and creating a skill challenge, rather than a simple check, gets your players thinking and working on the same page. In addition to working out the lock picking together, adjusting for skill, and lack thereof, requiring three successful attempts to get the lock to turn, builds suspense, keeps players sharp and characters active, and overall, shortens the time spent working through mundane tasks between combats.
There's no reason the door should take any longer to open, in real time, using a well designed challenge, than it does to roll the dice and pass or fail, and if the players are engaged, they won't notice if it does.

It still amazes me how often in these discussions, when someone asks, "how would you handle this?", that when someone offers a solution that involves bringing some old-school life back to the party, responses waft back to "that's not in the rules".

 

[ad_hoc]

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?

Yeah, the worst Sage Advice for the game was the Familiars can Help in combat thing.

It doesn't make sense, it isn't balanced, and it feels bad in play.

 

[Sadras]

Yeah, the worst Sage Advice for the game was the Familiars can Help in combat thing.

It doesn't make sense, it isn't balanced, and it feels bad in play.

Out of interest, why is it bad play or not making sense. I'm imagining a bird familiar that flies into the face of the opponent, let us say a hobgoblin, distracting him or hampering his vision temporarily thereby providing the Help. Ofcourse I would, for thematic purposes, make the hobgoblin focus his attacks on the character rather than the familiar at least for 1-2 rounds.

 

[ad_hoc]

Out of interest, why is it bad play or not making sense. I'm imagining a bird familiar that flies into the face of the opponent, let us say a hobgoblin, distracting him or hampering his vision temporarily thereby providing the Help. Ofcourse I would, for thematic purposes, make the hobgoblin focus his attacks on the character rather than the familiar at least for 1-2 rounds.

1) It's a first level spell that provides free advantage in combat. No action, no concentration, no save.
2) It ruins many other abilities that provide advantage as it is an easy continual source to get it.
3) It creates strangeness in character choices and invalidates others. Warlocks are better off taking Tome Pact and just getting the ritual of Find Familiar than Pact of the Chain. Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight subclasses come with a free advantage to an attack once per round, etc.
4) The familiar can't capital-A Attack, and yet it can attack.
5) Why is the enemy (continually) distracted by something that can't attack them? And why is this sort of 'distraction' enough for help? Surely there are many distracting things going on, on the battlefield at any given time. A giant could be fighting 5 PCs all at once and have no problems. Suddenly there is a frog and oh no my guard is down.
6) It changes the familiar from being a nice little creature that can help sometimes in scouting, sending a warning or other message, and such to a major contender in combat. It just feels wrong.
7) Why is the Hobgoblin not attacking the Familiar there? Clearly it is a huge threat which is easily disposed of. Hobgoblins esp. are combat tacticians. It is either distracting enough to be seen as a threat, or it isn't. And if it isn't, then it shouldn't be giving advantage.
This alone shows why it feels bad in play. The creature should be attacking it, but it isn't much fun to have your familiar die all the time, and isn't good cinematically either.
8) Follow up question - Do Gnolls Rampage when they kill the familiar? Why or why not?

I don't think this was the intent at all and it was just ruled this way because the final version of the Help action happened to be written this way. Some things were changed, like the 4 Elements Monk losing their bonus action ability and some were not like Agonizing Blast acting on every blast even though all other abilities like that don't. I think it was a mistake to not just issue errata in the spell or Help action to prevent it. True Strike along with the flavour cantrips are the most underpowered cantrips, but it shows just what the designers thought about giving out advantage.

When someone at the table had a familiar I told them before we started that I wouldn't be allowing any Help shenanigans. The whole table were shocked that was a thing and wouldn't have even thought to suggest it.

 

[Sadras]

@ad_hoc Appreciate the detailed reply. I'm not sure I agree with everything but then again I don't feel I have thought through it all either and therefore count myself as ill equipped for a rebuttal. Something for me to look into this weekend and see how I feel about it.

Just as an aside and why I was asking, no one at our table has dared to use their familiar in combat for the obvious reason that they risk losing it.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

For many years now, every gaming group I have been a part of has had a strict rule that nothing rolled before the DM asks for a roll counts. Once players new to the group got that into their heads, the sound of dice rolling in preparation of asking what to roll pretty much stopped. And without that distraction, players were able to focus more on what the DM was describing and understood more what was going on.

Also, to cut down on dice rolling, I apply the Passive Check rules to any skill use that does not have a penalty for failure:

"Here's how to determine a character's total for a passive check:

10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check

If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5."

As for Guidance, the spell says it has to be cast before the character it is cast on makes an ability check roll. Plus, the character rolling has the choice to roll the 1d4 bonus before or after the d20 roll.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

That's the problem with 5th, the Rules are too simple, but nowhere near clear enough. The rules quoted contradict each other on a fundamental level, if not a literal one, which is par for the course in D&D books, hence the idea that they are more guidelines than rules.

What rules contradict each other? Got an example?

 

[Reynard]

I have moved to a "one and done" philosophy on skill checks (not just in D&D but generally). Basically the single skill check encapsulates the character or group's efforts in the matter. There really aren't re-checks, and it covers both immediate things like picking a lock and extended tasks like sneaking into the castle. I have found it has the effect of making players really consider their approach and we do a lot more interrogating the scene and less die rolling.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

But, no 4th level pc ever has to fail at a job represented by an easy skill check. The GM can always choose to represent that die roll as a progress with setback.

I imagine that even you have had days or tasks where it didnt go as planned but you recovered and set it back right.

The rate of not getting the job done is always 100% in the hands of the GM on skill checks.

PHB under "Ability Checks"

"Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."