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

Wyvern · Jun 21, 2018

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

I get that. I really do. What I don't get is why you were unwilling to simply take the time to explain more clearly what you *did* mean. (ETA: Yes, it's frustrating when you're trying to explain something and the other guy persistently misses the point. But it's pretty uncharitable to assume that the misunderstanding must be entirely the other guy's fault.)

Also, as long as we're on the topic of what people meant, me saying "What you're talking about *could* legitimately be described as a 'group check' in a certain sense," is *not* the same as me saying "You say you're not talking about group checks but I think you're lying." If you can't see the difference, that's unfortunate, but it's the truth.

In any case, I can see that continuing to push the point wouldn't do anybody any good, so let me try to start over. Please answer, yes or no: Is *this* an accurate summation of what you were suggesting in your original post?

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. ... as I understand it, [he] 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.)

If it is, then nothing further needs to be said. If not, then the only way that anything constructive is going to come out of the tangent that you started is if you clarify what it is that you did mean. If you'd rather just drop the whole thing, that's your prerogative; I won't try to pursue it any further.

(For the record, I wasn't deliberately trying to stir the pot by restarting an argument that had already concluded, I simply came late to the discussion because I hadn't been paying attention to this thread over the weekend. I should have known better, and I apologize if I caused any hard feelings, but I really did think you were being a bit unfair to Clayton.)

Wyvern

Wyvern · Jun 21, 2018

ClaytonCross said:
I was voicing a concern that if your basically running individual checks instead of group check ... 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.

You're operating on the assumption that he would *only* apply "setbacks" when multiple characters are attempting the same check. We won't know for sure unless he decides to weigh in on the topic, but it's entirely possible that "setback" is simply how he describes the consequences of failure, even when it's just a single character making the check. I didn't see anything in his original posts to indicate otherwise.

Even if "setbacks" are a special consequence for failure that only apply when multiple characters are helping one another with a skill check, that doesn't mean that teamwork is a bad idea that nobody would ever choose over trying to go it alone. I've seen mechanics in other games that allow a player to increase their chances of success by accepting an increased risk of negative consequences. This would be no different.

Wyvern

5ekyu · Jun 21, 2018

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.

That is justifiably utter insanity. Wasn't D&D supposed to be about finding glory and fame in success because there actually was a risk of failure?

Man, I'm getting old, if y'all are content rolling meaningless dice where you risk nothing and never fail.

Of course you must rule that all these bonuses never apply out of combat, or you can never gain the satisfaction of success,or more to the point: the satisfaction you dared to gamble with defeat but won anyway.

"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. "

Can you provide cite for that claim... Particularly one oncluding the dice and support involved? Or os that you making it up?

To me, looking at a point man, bardic dice, guidance plus advantage thats far from the tier (tier 2 if i read you right) that i as GM would be expecting easy and moderate skill check to be such a challenge as to be drama producing in small numbers. A limited resource class buff ability, a cantrip, assistance and a limited resource feat all to dismiss relatively mundane tasks? At the same tier that the pcs can fly, turn gaseous, bring back freshly dead? The tier after the knock spell and spider climb kicked a number of skill to the ground?

To me, tier-2 is where the pcs start just really not worrying about the same mundane challenges - they can handle those - but move into more heroic level stuff. No longer worrying about simple trip wires and locked doors, definitely more into indiana jones and laura croft and James Bond - to look for less magical analogs. So, challenges that task their skills should be more akin to med-hard and/or under fire where multi-tag-team with impunity is not as simple.

That lets them see definite difference between tier-1 and tier-2 risks. Just like those CR-1 enemies are now more of a warm up than life and death.

ClaytonCross · Jun 21, 2018

Wyvern said:
You're operating on the assumption that he would *only* apply "setbacks" when multiple characters are attempting the same check. We won't know for sure unless he decides to weigh in on the topic, but it's entirely possible that "setback" is simply how he describes the consequences of failure, even when it's just a single character making the check. I didn't see anything in his original posts to indicate otherwise.

Even if "setbacks" are a special consequence for failure that only apply when multiple characters are helping one another with a skill check, that doesn't mean that teamwork is a bad idea that nobody would ever choose over trying to go it alone. I've seen mechanics in other games that allow a player to increase their chances of success by accepting an increased risk of negative consequences. This would be no different.

Wyvern

I am not so much operating under an assumption so much as saying if you "this" then I thank you should "that". Being Ovinomancer didn't say it would or that it would not apply to single checks. It was me that said, that in my opinion, if you make a rule that applies "setbacks" to checks it should apply to all checks and then I explained why. Not as a criticism (since no vie was stated) but as a point of consideration for idea building and/or further discussion.

I disagree on your last paragraph. I have seen players stop using options because they incur unnecessary risks. The only way they would risk these "setbacks" is if the risk of failure would pose a much larger issues and they are being placed between a rock and a hard place. So if failing the test might mean instant death for a player or the group for example they might still use team work at the greater risk but it would still effectively kill team work for the sake of avoiding "set backs" other wise. So they use team work to attempt to disarm the trap but refuse to help move a shelf to block a door to secure the room for the night. Oddly most people IRL would expect team work to tend the other way. You call a friend to help move your furniture to a new house but you don't expect help moving your pet cobra over to another cage so you can clean it. No one wants to help when they could get bitten. They might, but the point is when their is already a risk you don't need to add more but when their is no risk adding risk will discourage team work.

Wyvern · Jun 21, 2018

ClaytonCross said:
I have seen players stop using options because they incur unnecessary risks. The only way they would risk these "setbacks" is if the risk of failure would pose a much larger issues and they are being placed between a rock and a hard place. So if failing the test might mean instant death for a player or the group for example they might still use team work at the greater risk but it would still effectively kill team work for the sake of avoiding "set backs" other wise.

Maybe you and the other people you play with are cautious types, but not everyone is like that. Like I said, I've seen games that *encourage* players to take on added risk and even invent complications themselves. I'm not talking about disastrous failures, just temporary setbacks. I think some people find that it adds tension and excitement to the game. Plus, there are often mechanical rewards for taking extra risks, such as XP points, bennies that can be spent later to improve a roll later on, and so forth. Some games even allow a player to turn a failed check to a success *if* they accept a complication in exchange.

I'm not saying that's how *I* would handle teamwork, specifically, in a game of D&D -- if nothing else, it doesn't make much logical sense to me that working together would come with inherently greater risk of a setback than working alone. But that doesn't make "greater risk for greater reward" an invalid strategic option.

Wyvern

Ovinomancer · Jun 21, 2018

Now you're arguing amongst yourselves about what it was I meant. For an idle thought I posted just so I could return to it for later consideration, this has taken on some seriously massive importance. I mean, I've already discardeded the thought behind it but you two are still arguing about how you imagine I run. It was a "what if" post, not a "I do it this way" post.

CapnZapp · Jun 21, 2018

5ekyu said:
"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. "

Can you provide cite for that claim... Particularly one oncluding the dice and support involved? Or os that you making it up?

To me, looking at a point man, bardic dice, guidance plus advantage thats far from the tier (tier 2 if i read you right) that i as GM would be expecting easy and moderate skill check to be such a challenge as to be drama producing in small numbers. A limited resource class buff ability, a cantrip, assistance and a limited resource feat all to dismiss relatively mundane tasks? At the same tier that the pcs can fly, turn gaseous, bring back freshly dead? The tier after the knock spell and spider climb kicked a number of skill to the ground?

To me, tier-2 is where the pcs start just really not worrying about the same mundane challenges - they can handle those - but move into more heroic level stuff. No longer worrying about simple trip wires and locked doors, definitely more into indiana jones and laura croft and James Bond - to look for less magical analogs. So, challenges that task their skills should be more akin to med-hard and/or under fire where multi-tag-team with impunity is not as simple.

That lets them see definite difference between tier-1 and tier-2 risks. Just like those CR-1 enemies are now more of a warm up than life and death.

If your point is, a higher levels heroes stop worrying about DC 10 checks, I heartily agree.

In fact, that's my whole point.

Only the memo didn't reach the official hardback adventure writers, who insist in adding in such checks even at material aimed at tier II and even tier III parties!

If you describe a door as "secret", yet gives it a DC of 10, then, well... I really shouldn't have to explain how absurd that is.

Or rather, it's mind-blowingly horrendously absurd that's what! (What I hope I don't have to do is explain why)

CapnZapp · Jun 21, 2018

And again, as for the actual topic of the thread, the game definitely doesn't need guidance, inspiration and the Help action to work with no cost.

In combat, there's a cost. Outside of combat, either create a cost or disallow the help.

Wyvern · Jun 21, 2018

iserith said:
That's exactly my point though - "Easy" is subjective and requires an understanding of the total context at the table. Which means examples are often pointless distractions that harm understanding as has been shown here quite easily in my view. So it's better to sit at the level of abstraction. It doesn't matter what I consider to be Easy tasks...

Yesterday I was too busy trying to figure out how to disentangle myself from the sticky mess that I'd gotten myself into by trying to mediate between Ovinomancer and ClaytonCross, to give much thought to your reply. Now that I've had more time to mull it over, here's what I think.

I see your point that difficulty ratings are subjective and trying to pin them down can just result in pointless arguments. To the extent that avoiding argument is the goal, I agree with you. If one GM thinks that climbing a rope is a DC 10 task and another thinks it should be a DC 15, there's no point in debating over who's right and who's wrong as long as both GMs and their players are happy. Having said that, I still contend that there are two reasons why it *is* useful to have concrete guidelines as to what constitutes an Easy task, a Medium one, and so forth.

The first, of course, is for inexperienced GMs who need guidance in determining what DCs to assign.

The second is when the players are *not* happy. If one person thinks that DC 10 tasks are too easy and another thinks they're too hard, it's useful to know that the first has a GM who makes the players roll DC 10 Dex checks to tie their shoelaces, while the latter has a GM who thinks that juggling lit sticks of dynamite is a DC 10 Dex check. In those cases, having concrete examples of what they're basing their judgments on allows us to conclude that the problem isn't with the game, it's with how they're playing the game.

If you still don't think there's any value in having concrete examples, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. In any case, I think I've said everything I have to say on the topic.

Wyvern

iserith · Jun 21, 2018

Wyvern said:
Yesterday I was too busy trying to figure out how to disentangle myself from the sticky mess that I'd gotten myself into by trying to mediate between Ovinomancer and ClaytonCross, to give much thought to your reply. Now that I've had more time to mull it over, here's what I think.

I see your point that difficulty ratings are subjective and trying to pin them down can just result in pointless arguments. To the extent that avoiding argument is the goal, I agree with you. If one GM thinks that climbing a rope is a DC 10 task and another thinks it should be a DC 15, there's no point in debating over who's right and who's wrong as long as both GMs and their players are happy. Having said that, I still contend that there are two reasons why it *is* useful to have concrete guidelines as to what constitutes an Easy task, a Medium one, and so forth.

The first, of course, is for inexperienced GMs who need guidance in determining what DCs to assign.

The second is when the players are *not* happy. If one person thinks that DC 10 tasks are too easy and another thinks they're too hard, it's useful to know that the first has a GM who makes the players roll DC 10 Dex checks to tie their shoelaces, while the latter has a GM who thinks that juggling lit sticks of dynamite is a DC 10 Dex check. In those cases, having concrete examples of what they're basing their judgments on allows us to conclude that the problem isn't with the game, it's with how they're playing the game.

If you still don't think there's any value in having concrete examples, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. In any case, I think I've said everything I have to say on the topic.

Wyvern

I would say that, in this discussion, concrete examples were not required because you got my point without them. My declining to provide examples was based solely on their necessity to our discussion, not on examples in general that may be used for instructive purposes.

As for examples of tasks with a DC 10 that a given group could use as a benchmark for rulings at those tables, there are some examples in the PHB and DMG and likely in other books.