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

[tetrasodium]

Seems to me this isn't using an ability with a skill but just an ability. What does the proposed rule say about that?

I wrote an adventure (in another system) in which the heroes had a climactic escape at the main gate and had to fight off attackers who kept coming every round, while trying to turn a windlass to raise a portcullis. It explicitly used the strength score (or its equivalent in this system) and allowed for two people to cooperate. Of course, you can't really fight off guards while turning a windlass.

I think it's literally the ability check referenced by the assist ability check option in the help action

Spoiler: Ability check text

ABILITY CHECK
The Ability Check is one of three types of d20
Tests. The rules often call for an Ability Check,
and the DM can also call for an Ability Check,
determining which ability to use when a creature
attempts something (other than an Attack Roll or
a Saving Throw) that has a chance of meaningful
failure. When the outcome is uncertain and
narratively interesting, the dice determine the
results.
The Ability Check has the following special
rules.
SKILLS
When you make an Ability Check, the rules or the
DM determines whether a Skill Proficiency is
relevant to the check. If you have a relevant Skill
Proficiency, you can add your Proficiency Bonus
to the roll. For example, if a rule refers to a
Strength Check (Acrobatics or Athletics), you can
add your Proficiency Bonus to the check if you
have Acrobatics or Athletics Proficiency.
ACTION REQUIRED
Making an Ability Check requires you to take an
Action unless a rule says otherwise. Several of
the named Actions—such as Hide and
Influence—include Ability Checks.
The DM may override this requirement and
allow a particular Ability Check to be made as
part of a Bonus Action or as no Action at all.
DIFFICULTY CLASS
The DM determines the Difficulty Class of an
Ability Check and can override a DC specified in
the rules. The Typical Difficulty Class table
shows the most common DCs.
The default DC for a check is 15, and it is rarely
worth calling for an Ability Check if the DC is as
low as 5, unless the potential failure is
narratively interesting.

TYPICAL DIFFICULTY CLASS
Task Difficulty DC
Very Easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very Hard 25
Nearly Impossible 30

It's all very clear from what I read. I think the disagreement is largely a matter if the GM should be allowed to say no to unreasonable actions & have the rules support them or if the GM should need to change create & nullify rules in order to say no to unreasonable or poorly formed ideas that may or may not be an action depending on consensus.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think it's literally the ability check referenced by the assist ability check option in the help action

Spoiler: Ability check text

ABILITY CHECK
The Ability Check is one of three types of d20
Tests. The rules often call for an Ability Check,
and the DM can also call for an Ability Check,
determining which ability to use when a creature
attempts something (other than an Attack Roll or
a Saving Throw) that has a chance of meaningful
failure. When the outcome is uncertain and
narratively interesting, the dice determine the
results.
The Ability Check has the following special
rules.
SKILLS
When you make an Ability Check, the rules or the
DM determines whether a Skill Proficiency is
relevant to the check. If you have a relevant Skill
Proficiency, you can add your Proficiency Bonus
to the roll. For example, if a rule refers to a
Strength Check (Acrobatics or Athletics), you can
add your Proficiency Bonus to the check if you
have Acrobatics or Athletics Proficiency.
ACTION REQUIRED
Making an Ability Check requires you to take an
Action unless a rule says otherwise. Several of
the named Actions—such as Hide and
Influence—include Ability Checks.
The DM may override this requirement and
allow a particular Ability Check to be made as
part of a Bonus Action or as no Action at all.
DIFFICULTY CLASS
The DM determines the Difficulty Class of an
Ability Check and can override a DC specified in
the rules. The Typical Difficulty Class table
shows the most common DCs.
The default DC for a check is 15, and it is rarely
worth calling for an Ability Check if the DC is as
low as 5, unless the potential failure is
narratively interesting.

TYPICAL DIFFICULTY CLASS
Task Difficulty DC
Very Easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very Hard 25
Nearly Impossible 30

It's all very clear from what I read. I think the disagreement is largely a matter if the GM should be allowed to say no to unreasonable actions & have the rules support them or if the GM should need to change create & nullify rules in order to say no to unreasonable or poorly formed ideas that may or may not be an action depending on consensus.

Not quite. The disagreement came from a scenario in which no PC had a skill proficiency but the playtest Help Action can only be done RAW by someone with an appropriate skill proficiency. The question being whether the extant 5e version of Help is worded better than this playtest one, or not. (With proponents on either side).

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nah it's moved on to a hypothetical situation where two pcs want to use the help action to lift a heavy object.. But their carry capacity is too low... And they have no relevant skill to help each other with... And it seems like the gm doesn't want to make an exception.

Seriously? Why not sneeringly add that I'm a whiner too while you demean and misrepresent a conversation you are not even participating in?

To actually answer @Lojaan 's question, the current discussion has shifted to the changes to the Help action, and whether or not requiring two people with skill proficiencies to grant the advantage is good. One of the issues currently being discussed is whether or not this impacts a groups ability to work as a team. The example of moving an object was a simple and quick method to demonstrate two people, without proficiency, working together to increase their chances.

If you feel that is a bad example, I came up with seven others. Because this isn't about a single example, it is about a rules change.

Also @FitzTheRuke , really? This gets a like from you as you have been saying that you wanted to just understand? I already addressed this single example with you a yesterday, but I guess you still think this is about a single example, not the larger issue?

 

[Chaosmancer]

There’s a cost…literally…to healer’s kits.

Which I literally addressed. That cost is 5 gold. We are discussing OD&D, so let us look at the starting gold for a character. At a minimum, the characters start with 150 gold to buy equipment. Every single example character from the last UA's backgrounds that I can remember had at least 10 gold left, two of the example characters from these classes have 18 gold left. Meaning that we can average and guess that most 1st level characters will have 25 gold left over.

Enough for 5 healer's kits. Each.

That isn't a significant cost. It could be described as no cost at all, or a no-brainer. Which is why I pointed out that it could be argued these items basically have no cost.

That said, in general both D&D itself and the patterns of play that have become entrenched in the culture (even when the rules explicitly say otherwise) have many examples of zero-risk/cost moves. If I’m not mentioning some of them it’s not necessarily because I give them a pass, or that I’m taking an “inconsistently position”. Rather it’s just because there are a lot of them, and I’m probably only talking about the one being discussed at the moment.

I will add, however, that my dislike of these rules often correlates to the frequency with which they appear. Thus guidance is high on the list. So is, “Give me an Int (History) roll.” “Can I roll, too?” “And me!” Etc.

Okay, that is fair. But, I do wonder if you should consider whether or not your position that every single move must have a risk or a cost might be mistaken if the game was designed to have many zero-risk/no-cost moves. As I said in my above post, I find some of these moves only show up when players are invested in the success of the group.

And that’s great that they are invested! Which means if there were a risk or cost they’d probably pay it.

Or they may not, and their investment may wane. IF the cost is too high or too heavy, then they won't bother. We have a classical example of this in the Berserker Barbarian. The Cost of using Frenzy was too high, so very few people played the subclass, and the majority basically agreed that the ability was bad.

Making something costly to use does not make it a better ability.

If I truly “dreaded” it I would stop playing the game because it’s everywhere. But if we are discussing a particular rule I will bring it up, and look for a better design.

I don't believe what we are being shown is actually a better design. It is just a more restrictive design. There isn't even any new cost, because no one is going to get a skill proficiency and only use it for the Help Action, it will be used as a skill proficiency they have.



I also want to add, since we are talking about little cost. The Rogue being presented in this UA has an in-built advantage that we haven't talked about. The Rules for Tool Proficiency state that having proficiency with the Tool and with the Skill grants advantage. The rogue has proficiency with Thieve's Tools by default, and they are presented as having sleight of hand. This means that the Rogue automatically has advantage on every single check to unlock a door or disarm a trap, simply built into their class.

I'm not sure this is a good thing, but it does lend itself more to what I was discussing with Fitz, it seems that the classes are being designed to be more solo-played than before. The rogue thief will, by level 6, have advantage on every stealth check, every disarm traps check, and every unlock check. There really is little room for the rest of the party to do anything to help them, they can just vanish into a location and go to work without any need for the party. Especially by level 10 when they get reliable talent.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Maybe this is just me but if I had two characters trying to lift the same object together, I would just have them both make checks. IRL(I know, I know) if you and a friend are carrying an object, there's nothing you can really do if they "fail their check," they're just gonna drop their end of the object.

I always interpreted the Help action as doing something to directly guide the other player in something they can do by themselves, if they roll high enough. So in this example, it's the fighter with proficiency in Athletics saying "No no, lift with your legs Archibald. And put your right hand here for more leverage." In that case it does make sense that someone proficient in a skill would be better suited to help another player.

Firstly, as I just stated a little bit ago, I have seven other examples if you are hung up on this one example. This is not a situation of only this lifting example.

I am seriously considering never giving an example of anything ever again, because all it does is lead people to ignoring the point.


But, furthermore, "Archibald" here ALSO has proficiency in Athletics. They basically have to, because otherwise why would they be making the roll instead of the fighter? Which means all this fighter is doing is telling Archibald to lift with his legs, while Archibald was already lifting with his legs and positioning his hands for leverage. Yes, it makes some sense that a person with Proficiency can give better advice on how to do something to someone without, but this falls apart when you are talking about two equally skilled people who presumably have the same knowledge base.

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO. The help action changes should be a toggle that the GM can turn on or off to help the theme of his campaign.

Also whether some rolls are gated behind proficiency should also be a toggle. IMO.

 

[Branduil]

Firstly, as I just stated a little bit ago, I have seven other examples if you are hung up on this one example. This is not a situation of only this lifting example.

I am seriously considering never giving an example of anything ever again, because all it does is lead people to ignoring the point.


But, furthermore, "Archibald" here ALSO has proficiency in Athletics. They basically have to, because otherwise why would they be making the roll instead of the fighter? Which means all this fighter is doing is telling Archibald to lift with his legs, while Archibald was already lifting with his legs and positioning his hands for leverage. Yes, it makes some sense that a person with Proficiency can give better advice on how to do something to someone without, but this falls apart when you are talking about two equally skilled people who presumably have the same knowledge base.

Yes it would certainly make sense if Archibald also had proficiency in Athletics. I suppose the change I would make here is that you can Help someone as long as one of the two people involved has proficiency.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Which I literally addressed. That cost is 5 gold. We are discussing OD&D, so let us look at the starting gold for a character. At a minimum, the characters start with 150 gold to buy equipment. Every single example character from the last UA's backgrounds that I can remember had at least 10 gold left, two of the example characters from these classes have 18 gold left. Meaning that we can average and guess that most 1st level characters will have 25 gold left over.

Enough for 5 healer's kits. Each.

That isn't a significant cost. It could be described as no cost at all, or a no-brainer. Which is why I pointed out that it could be argued these items basically have no cost.



Okay, that is fair. But, I do wonder if you should consider whether or not your position that every single move must have a risk or a cost might be mistaken if the game was designed to have many zero-risk/no-cost moves. As I said in my above post, I find some of these moves only show up when players are invested in the success of the group.



Or they may not, and their investment may wane. IF the cost is too high or too heavy, then they won't bother. We have a classical example of this in the Berserker Barbarian. The Cost of using Frenzy was too high, so very few people played the subclass, and the majority basically agreed that the ability was bad.

Making something costly to use does not make it a better ability.




I don't believe what we are being shown is actually a better design. It is just a more restrictive design. There isn't even any new cost, because no one is going to get a skill proficiency and only use it for the Help Action, it will be used as a skill proficiency they have.



I also want to add, since we are talking about little cost. The Rogue being presented in this UA has an in-built advantage that we haven't talked about. The Rules for Tool Proficiency state that having proficiency with the Tool and with the Skill grants advantage. The rogue has proficiency with Thieve's Tools by default, and they are presented as having sleight of hand. This means that the Rogue automatically has advantage on every single check to unlock a door or disarm a trap, simply built into their class.

I'm not sure this is a good thing, but it does lend itself more to what I was discussing with Fitz, it seems that the classes are being designed to be more solo-played than before. The rogue thief will, by level 6, have advantage on every stealth check, every disarm traps check, and every unlock check. There really is little room for the rest of the party to do anything to help them, they can just vanish into a location and go to work without any need for the party. Especially by level 10 when they get reliable talent.

Look, I’m not expecting the game to be purged of all zero-cost abilities. But we are discussing rule changes and I’m pointing out that when there’s no cost/risk to a decision it’s not really a decision. You’re being rewarded for simply remembering to speak up. I think that’s boring.

In the discussion about guidance you claimed that you have to choose guidance over other cantrips, which is a cost/decision. Well, apply the same logic here: if you at least need proficiency to help, then at least you made a trade-off during chargen.

Not that I think it’s a great rule even with the restriction. My personal feeling is that there shouldn’t be a rule, only guidance. The DM should decide if it makes sense for one character to be able to help another, and if there’s a cost to failure. If the answers are, respectively yes then no, it might go like this:

“I try to lift the trap door.”
“It’s too heavy.”
“I help him.”
“There’s only one pull ring, and it’s too small for you to both get your hands on it.”
“I’ll put my mace handle through the ring.”
“Clever. Yeah with both of you pulling..”
“And I’ll cheer them on!”
“…with both of you pulling, and Eloelle cheering, the door creaks open.”

 

[gorice]

I think a lot of issues with help are resolved if you treat it the same way that all skill use is supposed to be treated: the player has to actually describe what their character is doing [edit: just saw @Bill Zebub 's post above, which says basically the same thing]. As a DM, you just need to ask 'how are you actually helping?', and it resolves most of these cases. If someone isn't proficient in history but is able to come up with some explanation as to how their character's background ties into the roll, more power to them.

'Help' is worded in a way that doesn't suggest this, and the general culture of play at a lot of tables seems to reject 5e's official style of rolling in favour of button-pushing, so I'm not surprised that it's a consistent issue.

That said, I don't think 'no cost' actions is a problem that can ever be solved in 5e without some kind of time constraints in place. Pretty much all the game's mechanics seem to imply that the PCs will be under time pressure (the lack of any formal way of creating this time pressure is a big hole in the design. IMO).

I also want to add, since we are talking about little cost. The Rogue being presented in this UA has an in-built advantage that we haven't talked about. The Rules for Tool Proficiency state that having proficiency with the Tool and with the Skill grants advantage. The rogue has proficiency with Thieve's Tools by default, and they are presented as having sleight of hand. This means that the Rogue automatically has advantage on every single check to unlock a door or disarm a trap, simply built into their class.

I'm not sure this is a good thing, but it does lend itself more to what I was discussing with Fitz, it seems that the classes are being designed to be more solo-played than before. The rogue thief will, by level 6, have advantage on every stealth check, every disarm traps check, and every unlock check. There really is little room for the rest of the party to do anything to help them, they can just vanish into a location and go to work without any need for the party. Especially by level 10 when they get reliable talent.

Yup. The common house rule that you can drink a potion as a bonus action also does this. Maybe a lot of players are just narcissists?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think a lot of issues with help are resolved if you treat it the same way that all skill use is supposed to be treated: the player has to actually describe what their character is doing [edit: just saw @Bill Zebub 's post above, which says basically the same thing]. As a DM, you just need to ask 'how are you actually helping?', and it resolves most of these cases. If someone isn't proficient in history but is able to come up with some explanation as to how their character's background ties into the roll, more power to them.

'Help' is worded in a way that doesn't suggest this, and the general culture of play at a lot of tables seems to reject 5e's official style of rolling in favour of button-pushing, so I'm not surprised that it's a consistent issue.

That said, I don't think 'no cost' actions is a problem that can ever be solved in 5e without some kind of time constraints in place. Pretty much all the game's mechanics seem to imply that the PCs will be under time pressure (the lack of any formal way of creating this time pressure is a big hole in the design. IMO).


Yup. The common house rule that you can drink a potion as a bonus action also does this. Maybe a lot of players are just narcissists?

Yes.

I’m on my phone trying to multi-task and didn’t add: when the designers say “use your best judgment” people whine about incomplete games that have to be finished. So they try to make rules. But this is an area where rules just don’t make a lot of sense.