The help action is not broken, but Working together is

[Umbran]

So... outside of combat, when we don't have time pressure on the scale of seconds, and we do have people working together, we... don't expect them to succeed?

Because, people working together.. fail a lot?

I mean, in my workplace, we have folks working together, and generally, stuff gets done well. Sure, there's an issue every now and again, but those are the exception, rather than a really regular occurrence. Rolling with advantage seems a good model.

And in our fictions - Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser... screw up all the time when they cooperate?

I just don't see how this is considered a problem, that characters working together end up basically competent.

 

[Istbor]

Who would have thought being a team and working together would be more powerful than a group of vaguely acquainted misfits?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I don’t get why you would ban advantage from cooperation. If I need to change a tire, it’s a hell of a lot easier and faster with a second person.

When someone wants to help another character in an out of combat task, I ask them what skill they will use. If it’s appropriate, then they get advantage. It’s obviously easier to move a stone if two people are pushing it, so if the secondary character says, ‘I use athletics to help’, then obviously it will help.

It’s harder to help someone pick a lock though and you aren’t likely to get advantage. But if a secondary character says, ‘I know lots about locks’ and they have proficiency in thieves tools, I might allow advantage with the justification that he’s giving advice. Maybe they make a simple investigation check to study the lock.

The point is it has to make sense.

Saying, “the familiar stands on my head and does a funny dance” will not garner you advantage. (Only the bard can do that).

 

[WaterRabbit]

The approach I take is to not have a die roll at all and assume it is a 10. So, you want to convince a guard to do something. The DC say 20 Persuasion/Intimidation/Deception check and the point person has a +5 to the roll normally (+2 Prof +3 CHA). That translates to a 15 which would be insufficient. Working together, another character can then add their bonus to the task. However the second character would then need to have at least a +5 to the check to overcome the DC which would be unlikely if they were not proficient.

Another way I do this is for moving a heavy object. Instead of having STR rolls, I specify how much total strength is needed such as 40 STR (this is easily extracted based upon its weight). This means that 4 normal STR people could move it, but 2-3 heroic characters could as well.

The main reason I go with this method is that outside of combat random results don't make much sense. Generally something can either be done or it cannot. If it cannot, extra effort can usually succeed.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don’t get why you would ban advantage from cooperation. If I need to change a tire, it’s a hell of a lot easier and faster with a second person.

You've clearly never changed a tire with my children.

Also, XP for your username

 

[RogueJK]

In my games, I only allow the pcs to get advantage if the helping character is proficient in the check. This rule has worked out nicely for us so far.

Same here. It's the simplest and most reasonable solution, IMO. It makes common sense, that the only way to help or advise someone else is if you know a bit about the skill yourself. How would the lumbering Fighter in full plate with a negative DEX, who's never picked a lock before, be able to help the trained Rogue pick a lock better?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Even a DC 20 test becomes way too simple for the party rogue if just any street bum can give him or her advantage.

That seems to be where you have error-ed. Not "just any street bum" can give Advantage. A character can only grant Advantage to another character if the DM agrees that the aid they provide would warrant it; and the DM is free to be as picky as they feel like when making that determination. If it's a DC 20 Athletics check to break down a door, then you're free to say that someone with a combined Athletics modifier less than +10 is unable to provide Advantage, because they don't help enough for it to count.

 

[Mistwell]

Outside of combat, Working Together the Help action is definitely broken. It makes it trivial to gain advantage on most every action, whether social, exploratory or investigative.

The cause here is that there's no cost. The helping character would otherwise have done nothing.

Help outside of combat absolutely needs to be removed. The other alternative, constructing challenges so that every character always has something worthwhile to do is an example of making the DM do work to cover up deficiencies in the rules, and why would anyone ever want to do that? Much easier to just remove OOC help.

Inside combat, or at any other time where the cost (spending your own action) is significant, help is not broken. It is almost never worth abstaining your own attack or spell just to make sure your ally succeeds. The best tactic is for the ally to simply try again and again, and eventually succeed on his or her own.

As for the familiar issue: just have your monsters ruthlessly kill off the familiar in each and every combat until the player stops trying to get cheesily cheap advantage, and there's no problem.

So the main issue is out of combat. Just don't allow characters working together to gain advantage except in very special circumstances.

It's an interesting topic and thank you for raising it.

I thought it might be helpful for the text of the rule to be in the thread:

"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. 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."

So the limits are:
1) helper must have been able to attempt it alone
2) can only help if working together would actually be productive (must be clearly easier with help).

It seems the second limit is the tricky one. Is it clearly easier to persuade someone when two people are trying rather than one? That depends - did the second person roll a 1 on their persuasion, indicating they probably did worse much worse than the average persuasion check?

 

[Jer]

That seems to be where you have error-ed. Not "just any street bum" can give Advantage. A character can only grant Advantage to another character if the DM agrees that the aid they provide would warrant it; and the DM is free to be as picky as they feel like when making that determination.

This is correct. If they're not good enough to help, you don't get the assist.

My players don't try to corner-case rules so I don't have a hard and fast rule, but "close to the same level and proficient in the skill being used" is probably what my rule of thumb would be if I had a player who was pushing it.

 

[Mistwell]

I don’t get why you would ban advantage from cooperation. If I need to change a tire, it’s a hell of a lot easier and faster with a second person.

Unless the second person is so inept they make it harder.