I'm not sure that's the intent - I think the intent is to make each roll more important. That's part of why (AFAICT) they've been pushing the "don't roll unless there is interesting consequences". I think they're trying to teach DMs to be both more generous to player input, and also to not let a bad roll derail the story that's being told.
Looking at this, the change to Guidance, and a few further afield things like no-Rogue-SA-on-reactions, and I've formulated a hypothesis to the developer's goals. I think they want to reset 'the norm' in some way. As in, they've seen/heard complaints regarding skills alwaysvery often seeming to be 'roll 1d20+bonuses*+1d4, twice (taking the better result)' -- enough that players may have started considering situations where they only have 'roll 1d20+bonuses*' as a skill-check under hostile circumstances (which it may be, if their DM has let their adhoc DC numbers slide in response). Thus, they are trying (again, if I am right) to re-establish 'roll 1d20+bonuses*' as the normative situation. *attribute bonus and, if applicable, proficiency bonus
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.
Yeah, the number of 'can I attack with a two-handed weapon while grappling someone?' threads on places like reddit attest to the fact that a large part of the community cannot or will not incorporate the fiction into play in many situations. I think we'll see the new edition (or whatever they're calling it) move toward a more 'button-pushy' design.
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).
Yes. I consider it a good thing that it's worded in a way that such a situation is only allowed if the gm chooses to make an exception to allow untrained to help untrained or skill A to help skill B as a thing that is "relevant"* to the ability check. The help action is not working together or a group checks though & has a higher bar to be met for its use.
"The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player’s Handbook, except where noted." That's the second sentence in the UA. There are rules for "working together" & "group checks"(phb175)★ & those rules are distinct enough from the help action to even include the words "This requires the help action (See Chapter 9)". The help action for the UA is on page 33 not phb ch9 but but both of working together & group checks are the purview of the gm. A different rule exists for this scenario (two of them) despite all unfortunately giving the same bonus of advantage, but the identical result of advantage for all things is a secondary problem we do not yet know if 6e will be tackling.
The GM is responsible for deciding when a d20 test** is needed†, what the dc of that test is††, is a skill is "relevant"*, and "the final say on whether your assistance is possible"❄.
* "Relevant" is the word used on playtest packet2 page30 in ability checks
**oh thank god I can use precise wording for a change
† I think this is still DMG or 2014 phb, it doesn't seem changed by the UA.
††UA pg 30 "Difficulty class" plus somewhere in the 5e dmg I'm sure
❄Help action UA pg33
★Those rules even specified "character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task."
Actions are a thing that players can choose to simply do but all of the things people are pushing for the help action to include wording for are things the GM decides elsewhere in rules specific to those things as noted a few lines up. Why is it needed for the help action to consume those other two rules formerly under the GM's control? Is there any reason other than making it harder for the GM to engage in those decisions & choices with backing of the rules to support their decision when that decision is not one that flavors the players?
Players can attempt to work together in an example like the one by @Bill Zebub in post258 but everything about if & how those actions work & which rules they use is for the GM to decide not the player declaring they are taking the help action. The ability check rules & help action already support using different skills like that example though, "You give advantage to the next ability check that ally makes with the chosen skill" from the help action(pg33) combines with "The rules or the DM determines whether a skill proficiency is relevant to the check" along with "The DM has the final say on whether your assistance is possible" from ability checks:skills(pg30)
The example in 258 starts with a scenario where assistance is not possible as the DM describes (the pull ring is too small).
Help action grants the gm that ability
That is changed by the action of sliding a mace handle through the ring
Such a thing could risk damaging the mace if 5.5/6e ultimately includes such rules.
"With both of you pulling the door creaks open...". The GM exercised their ability to "determine the Difficulty Class of an Ability Check"(pg30) & decided no roll was needed for the two
The UA is limited to player's handbook rules so not including guidance for the GM is not too odd in this case. The 2014 DMG does not appear to include any meaningful guidance that might be useful for adjudicating these kinds of edge cases like 3.5 dmg 21 & 30 did in the past. 4e May have had something useful for skill challenges but4e is not my strength & was pretty different. In light of how hard the 2014 rules drop the ball there it might be good for a future packet to include at least a sidebar or secondary rule framework for the GM to use as this one does with the DC table
Personally I would be fine throwing a bone onto the new guidance to strengthen in a bit. Say for example, removing the V and S components (it is a reaction after all so I think that's in line), and increase the distance to 60 feet or even 100 feet.
With no components you no longer have to worry about whether you can guidance stealth or persuasion (answer: you can with this version) or XYZ, it just works on all ability checks. Adding some distance gives you a little flexibility, 30 feet is actually pretty restrictive.
That I think rounds it out a bit more, but with its 1/day/person restriction, is a nice solid cantrip.
Yes. I consider it a good thing that it's worded in a way that such a situation is only allowed if the gm chooses to make an exception to allow untrained to help untrained or skill A to help skill B as a thing that is "relevant"* to the ability check.
Yes, these are my feelings as well - I'd rather (as a DM and a player) have the rule be strict, with the DM encouraged to allow for clever (usually player-driven) exceptions, than the rule be player-exploitable, and the DM have to deny players when they go overboard.
Right! That clarifies for me why I posted earlier that in the original scenario I would probably have just had both PCs roll strength checks (if I made them roll at all) and let the higher one "do the heavy lifting" (ie get the praise).
I think it was suggested that it was "homebrewing" which irked me a bit, but I couldn't articulate why it wasn't. It's because my ruling would be using a Group Check (for a group of two) instead of the Help action. (After all, both participants are working equally).
The playtest wording for the Help Action just makes Help more "expert advice" than an "extra pair of hands". The reason it works for Attacking is presumably anyone standing in melee with your opponent is 'expert' enough to pose a threat, and therefore good enough to distract them. (Or to look at it another way, the "chosen skill" is your weapon proficiency.)
I've gone back and forth a little in my own head on this while discussing it, but I find that I'm still fine with the playtest version replacing the 2014 version.
I don't think it's good for D&D - especially given it's wide player-base - to make effectiveness in combat turn on what are basically mathematical tricks.
And in the fiction, it's not like the to hit number and the damage number represent discrete things. Like a high roll to hit followed by a low damage roll doesn't mean a really, really precise but rather gentle poke.
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.
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:
Presenting it purely as guidance would be far too little. Some DMs would say no to any sort of Help ever and players would have no idea if they can or cannot Help their allies.
And again, a different part of this changed rule covers the DMs ability to say no if it doesn't make sense.
“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.”
Honestly, this is a great example of why I LIKE the help action. It has nothing to do with whether or not you have the skills, it is presenting the situation and asking "How could you help" and it leads to clever solutions when you can't. I don't want to lose that
I don't think it's good for D&D - especially given it's wide player-base - to make effectiveness in combat turn on what are basically mathematical tricks.
And in the fiction, it's not like the to hit number and the damage number represent discrete things. Like a high roll to hit followed by a low damage roll doesn't mean a really, really precise but rather gentle poke.
"The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player’s Handbook, except where noted." That's the second sentence in the UA. There are rules for "working together" & "group checks"(phb175)★ & those rules are distinct enough from the help action to even include the words "This requires the help action (See Chapter 9)". The help action for the UA is on page 33 not phb ch9 but but both of working together & group checks are the purview of the gm.
[snip]
Actions are a thing that players can choose to simply do but all of the things people are pushing for the help action to include wording for are things the GM decides elsewhere in rules specific to those things as noted a few lines up. Why is it needed for the help action to consume those other two rules formerly under the GM's control? Is there any reason other than making it harder for the GM to engage in those decisions & choices with backing of the rules to support their decision when that decision is not one that flavors the players?
This seems like a rather fundamental misunderstanding of the rules text you are reading. The rules "working together" ARE the Help action. It is just listed in both places, because one section of the rules was talking about skills and the other was an action for combat. But if you read the Help action in chap 9 it opens talking about the skill use. It is poor layout and formatting, not the existence of a third set of rules.
This in no way has anything to do with GM control, and frankly, the GM had no control over the Help action to begin with, other than the ability to say no. And they still retain that ability with any change that doesn't require both parties to have proficiency.
Also, group checks have NOTHING to do with what we are talking about, they cover an entirely different set of circumstances.
