Why doesn't the help action have more limits and down sides?

Ovinomancer said:

Oh, good grief, another one who's declared themselves expert on my thinking so they can tell me I'm absolutely wrong about what it was I meant.

Click to expand...

I never said you were wrong about what you meant. I *did* point out how your suggestion might have been misconstrued as constituting a "group check". Otherwise, I was only trying to do what you were unwilling to do -- explain to Clayton, politely and patiently, what it was that he misunderstood.

Now, if I've *also* misunderstood what it was you were trying to say, you have three choices: you can ignore me, you can explain to me politely and patiently what you really meant, or you can get pissy with me too. One of these is easy, and will leave things no better or worse off than they are now; one is more difficult, but could potentially add something of value to the discussion; and one will lower the level of the conversation.

Wyvern

iserith said:

Then, as far as I can tell, you also agree with @Ovinomancer. What you may not agree on is what constitutes an Easy task. But that is, as you already said, subjective.

Click to expand...

It seemed to me that he was saying that the DCs recommended in the book are too difficult. I don't agree with him on that. I think they're exactly as difficult as they should be.

Wyvern

Wyvern said:

It seemed to me that he was saying that the DCs recommended in the book are too difficult. I don't agree with him on that. I think they're exactly as difficult as they should be.

Wyvern

Click to expand...

Taking his post within the context of the ongoing conversation with a couple of other posters, it looks to me to be a rebuttal to the assertion that the DCs are too easy. His position thus appears to be that they are as difficult as they should be to encourage players to avoid rolling wherever possible and could reasonably be argued to be too difficult, not that they are too difficult. [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I read it.

Wyvern said:

I never said you were wrong about what you meant. I *did* point out how your suggestion might have been misconstrued as constituting a "group check". Otherwise, I was only trying to do what you were unwilling to do -- explain to Clayton, politely and patiently, what it was that he misunderstood.

Now, if I've *also* misunderstood what it was you were trying to say, you have three choices: you can ignore me, you can explain to me politely and patiently what you really meant, or you can get pissy with me too. One of these is easy, and will leave things no better or worse off than they are now; one is more difficult, but could potentially add something of value to the discussion; and one will lower the level of the conversation.

Wyvern

Click to expand...

Right, because it's my duty to respond to you in the manner you wish or the conversation will suffer. I made it clear I wasn't talking about group checks. You chose, after I made that clear multiple times, to continue the pursuit after the other poster left off. Where you improving the conversation when you chose to ignore my clear statements with your new post about how I might be wrong and have actually meant to talk about group checks? No. So, please, do not climb onto a high horse and tell me I'm the one creating the problem after you've rolled in the mud. If you really wanted to add to the conversation, you might try re-reading the posts in question with the firm belief that I wasn't talking about group checks and respond to that, hmm?

Wyvern said:

It seemed to me that he was saying that the DCs recommended in the book are too difficult. I don't agree with him on that. I think they're exactly as difficult as they should be.

Wyvern

Click to expand...

I do love that you've appointed yourself the explainer of what it is I mean.

iserith said:

Taking his post within the context of the ongoing conversation with a couple of other posters, it looks to me to be a rebuttal to the assertion that the DCs are too easy. His position thus appears to be that they are as difficult as they should be to encourage players to avoid rolling wherever possible and could reasonably be argued to be too difficult, not that they are too difficult. [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I read it.

Click to expand...

No need, you've got it.

CapnZapp said:

Remember the topic of the thread. It's not just that DC 10 is laughably easy for the point man that attempts them, it's the ridiculous insanity of an easy time that guidance, Bardic Inspiration and indeed the help action results in.

Let's say the party needs to make three Really Important checks during one day of adventure; seducing the baroness, convincing the Bridge Troll of passage, and impressing the Kobolds of Food with an eating contest.

Each time, the best man (or woman) steps up for the job.

Now, if you believe the rules designers, you're supposed to find excitement and drama in making a DC 10-15 check, when your roll is d20+d8+d4+8 with advantage, and then a Lucky reroll just for good measure.

Click to expand...

Your example makes a number of assumptions:

1) Every party includes a bard.

2) Every party includes a cleric or druid.

3) Both the bard and the cleric/druid are present and able to assist in every Really Important skill check made by any party member.

4) Every member of the party is a halfling.

5) No member of the party will be on their own when called upon to make a Really Important skill check.

6) The party can anticipate every Really Important skill check they'll need to make outside of combat, and always have the freedom to choose the best person for the job.

7) The only skill checks that matter are the Really Important ones.

8) A DC 15 skill check is *supposed* to be challenging for a character of 9th level or higher (+4 ability bonus, +4 proficiency = +8).

Maybe in your games, nobody ever has to make a skill check that they weren't prepared for. If that's the case, I can only say that I think the way you play the game is different from the way most other people play the game.

Also, sometimes it's not about "drama and excitement". Sometimes it's about the satisfaction of absolutely acing a skill check because you *did* prepare or you *are* Just That Good.

Wyvern

Wyvern said:

Also, sometimes it's not about "drama and excitement". Sometimes it's about the satisfaction of absolutely acing a skill check because you *did* prepare or you *are* Just That Good.

Click to expand...

I would also say that the "drama and excitement" has more to do with the context of the scenes and events that lead up to and follow the ability check than the tension created by the ability check itself. That tension is good when it happens, but there's more to it than that in my view.

Ovinomancer said:

Right, because it's my duty to respond to you in the manner you wish or the conversation will suffer.

Click to expand...

You don't have a "duty" to do anything here. You have the right and the freedom to be as rude and unhelpful as you like. Just as I have the right and the freedom to point out when I think that someone is being rude and unhelpful.

I made it clear I wasn't talking about group checks.

Click to expand...

Repeating something over and over is not the same as "making it clear". I get that you weren't talking about group checks as the book defines group checks. Nonetheless, what you described did involve multiple people making skill checks, and therefore the term "group check" is a term that could conceivably apply. If you object to that term, I would appreciate it if you would explain *why* you object to it.

Where you improving the conversation when you chose to ignore my clear statements with your new post about how I might be wrong and have actually meant to talk about group checks?

Click to expand...

Again, I never said you were wrong about that. I was only trying to point out to you how Clayton might have innocently misunderstood what you had said.

If you really wanted to add to the conversation, you might try re-reading the posts in question with the firm belief that I wasn't talking about group checks and respond to that, hmm?

Click to expand...

You may not believe me, but I actually *did* do that. Initially, my post was going to end after the first paragraph. But then I reread your second post and began to see that what you were describing actually *did* mean something different from what Clayton took it to mean. I was trying to be helpful by clearing up the misunderstanding.

Ovinomancer said:

I do love that you've appointed yourself the explainer of what it is I mean.

Click to expand...

I'm not explaining what you mean, I'm explaining what I *understood* your posts to mean. That's something that communication experts recommend: repeat back to the other person what you think it is they said, so that they can be sure that you understood them correctly. Now, if you think that I've misunderstood you, the *helpful* thing to do is to explain to me exactly *what* it is that I misunderstood. After all, if there's a discrepancy between what you said and what other people *think* you've said, then it means there's been a failure of communication.

Wyvern

Wyvern said:

You don't have a "duty" to do anything here. You have the right and the freedom to be as rude and unhelpful as you like. Just as I have the right and the freedom to point out when I think that someone is being rude and unhelpful.



Repeating something over and over is not the same as "making it clear". I get that you weren't talking about group checks as the book defines group checks. Nonetheless, what you described did involve multiple people making skill checks, and therefore the term "group check" is a term that could conceivably apply. If you object to that term, I would appreciate it if you would explain *why* you object to it.



Again, I never said you were wrong about that. I was only trying to point out to you how Clayton might have innocently misunderstood what you had said.



You may not believe me, but I actually *did* do that. Initially, my post was going to end after the first paragraph. But then I reread your second post and began to see that what you were describing actually *did* mean something different from what Clayton took it to mean. I was trying to be helpful by clearing up the misunderstanding.



I'm not explaining what you mean, I'm explaining what I *understood* your posts to mean. That's something that communication experts recommend: repeat back to the other person what you think it is they said, so that they can be sure that you understood them correctly. Now, if you think that I've misunderstood you, the *helpful* thing to do is to explain to me exactly *what* it is that I misunderstood. After all, if there's a discrepancy between what you said and what other people *think* you've said, then it means there's been a failure of communication.

Wyvern

Click to expand...

Dude. No. When the topic is what I meant, me saying "no, I don't mean that," is fricking definitive.

Wyvern said:

That sounds a lot like a group check to me. It may not be the same as how the PHB defines a group check, but it's still a group, making a check. Now, I can see how Clayton may have read something into your suggestion that wasn't there, but if that's the case it would behoove you to clear up the misunderstanding instead of getting pissy with him because he failed to understand you.

Clayton: I *think* (and Ovinomancer can correct me if I've also got the wrong end of the stick) that your mistake was assuming that Ovinomancer applies critical failures to skill checks, because he used the word "setback". On rereading this post, it seems to me that he's suggesting that *any* failure would result in a "setback", not just failure by a certain margin. He also never said anything about "punishing group effort", so I'm not really sure where you got that from.

As to your comment that "Even a single character running the test could have the same consequences," I think you're missing the point of what he suggested. Again, as I understand it, this post is saying that additional people making a skill check increases the chance of success while *also* increasing the chance of a setback, because it's not binary -- if one character succeeds at the check while another fails, the goal has been achieved but at a cost. (That's *not* possible if a single character is making the check, because they can either succeed or fail, but not both.)

Wyvern

Click to expand...

So thanks for trying to clear up what Ovinomancer was unwilling to. (Weather he agrees with you or not I appreciate an attempt)

But let me clarify somethings from my replies.

1. I did not mistake that Ovinomancer was using critical failures, I was suggesting that he could instead of adding punishment to all failure. Failure is its own punishment. He said he was working on an Idea and I was suggesting something that is not in the rules, is commonly used already, and has been play tested to a point their is not doubt it is not broken. So their is not reason to come up with a new system from scratch to achieve the basis of his goal unless he just really has too and most player will except critical failures because they already use them on combat.

2. I get that he was saying that any failure by additional people doing the same test (some how not a group test) would be a setback, I understand that but I was voicing a concern that if your basically running individual checks instead of group check (or running group checks, my statement not Ovinomancer's) but your not applying that to failure on single checks your going to teach players to only do one individual test and stop working as a team because your creating a threat that only applies to "multiple character doing the same check". Which I am saying is punishing group efforts, group check or not. That may not be the intent but unless you apply it to single skill checks its a punishment for the group doing the same thing at the same time as you might expect people to do.

3. I disagree with the assessment that one player has a chance to pass and a chance to fail, but two players have a greater chance to pass so should have a greater risk. The whole point of team work is to reduce your chance of failing so by adding a mechanic that creates failure or punishment even on success your just punishing team work in my openion. You might have more of a chance at success, but you have two chances for set backs regardless of success which means "setbacks" will happen more often than not because they would occur if the primary fails, the secondary fails or if the both fail,.... the only time you would not have a setback is if both succeed and if that was the case only one person was needed for the test that means any time anyone "helps" or performs the same check and it would actually be useful... your punishing the group with a setback....

So with all that in mind my suggestion was to allow critical failures this also increased the chance of "setback" because the more people who do the same test the more chances to rule a 1, It means you can avoid punishing groups because your not punishing "help" or multiple people doing the same check with a "setback" unless they would not be needed anyway, and you can apply the same standard to a single person doing the test who can still roll a 1 so that "set backs" are not a team work problem the can avoid but just a 5% chance thing of happening to anyone at anytime... that happen to scale with more test roles…. INCUDING the same person trying the same test again a different way.

I am reasonably sure Ovinomancer will say "I still don't get it.. infact your worse" ...but that is because I have not actually ever changes what I meant I have just explained it different ways and I have not been able to pull a different meaning from anything he said Ovinomancer though I have tried. It is Ovinomancer's right not to have to clarify and I pushed for it as much as is reasonable to do but at this point I am willing to drop it unless there is some new information provided.