The help action is not broken, but Working together is

Henry said:

I also need to bring up that there are a LOT of checks where there's nothing by the rules stopping every single member of the party from rolling to attempt the task at hand. Perhaps things like deception or diplomacy might be problematic if more than one person attempts it, but perceptions, investigations, knowledge checks such as arcana, athletics checks or STR checks to force something open or move something heavy, etc. -- ALL of these could simply have the whole party keep trying until they succeed, via a dumb luck check. In these cases, working together works beautifully, because it covertly makes multiple players spend their actions giving someone advantage rather than spending tons of table time re-rolling and re-re-rolling. Same thing with the variant rule of "auto succeed if person attempting has an ability score greater than or equal to DC+5". The fewer rolls, the better, and what better way than saying, "oh, if you help this person they get advantage" or "You have a 16 STR? Oh, that DC 10 door is no problem for you!"

In my experiences, it not only simplifies the attempts, it quickly resolves the success or failure of the whole thing, so they can decide what their next course of action is.

Click to expand...

"Or some progress with setback determined by the GM."

Almost a quote if not one.

That's the second part of what a failure on an ability check is as defined by the PHB.

Perception &Investigations - you did notice A but while you were looking you failed to spot B or got noticed by C. Whether that means your pocket got picked in the bar while you looked for cultists or you were spotted and tracked by others etc... whole tons of options.
Knowledge checks - recall some good info and some misleading info.
Athletics/strength - damn, should a maybe not did that last bit... pulled something - take a level of exhaustion for the exertion... or dang got it shifted then slipped now it's a little further but wedgedvin so future checks are harder or disadvantaged. Or maybe it gave a little but stuff now is falling - noise, debris, damage.

Failure on ability checks in 5e is **not** imited ever to binary pass fail repeat - at least not as defined in the PHB under ability checks.

Edit to add cite from PHB

'If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success — the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

5ekyu said:

yup - i have seen parties without clerics - which means if i choose an undead heavy module - i gotta do what GMs have been expected to do since the time of the first modules - adjust the module for my game and where my group deviates from the norm.

I mean, sure, one can go onto the web and rail and moan and gripe and complain that the modules are too easy "when my party of twelve PCs takes them on" and go on and on and on and on... and keep pretending that the module wasn't actually made with the assumption of 12 PCs... but more like 4.

But after a while of people pointing that out... and the railing and moaning and griping keeps going... one has to believe folks get the idea it might actually not be a problem with the module or the rules...

Gms running real games week-in week-out get a lot more done for their players than is done with these... "discussions."

Click to expand...

indeed. But even if you run the modules as is, if you’re getting bless and using inspiration and working together to negate the challenge of lower DC checks, then you’re using more resources on that task than you otherwise would. The game runs fine as is.

CapnZapp said:

Well, if they can't be run as-is, that's a problem for me.


I am certainly not telling you how to run your game. Only telling WotC how they should have run theirs.

Click to expand...

You’ve actually told folks, in general, that if they don’t do what you suggest, their game will worse off, in general. Maybe you didn’t mean to, but that’s what you said.

Charlaquin said:

If there’s nothing preventing repeated attempts until someone lucks into a success, then skip the rolls and narrate the eventual success. Or introduce a cost or consequence.

Click to expand...

Or use a group check. Or tell them that the roll represents their attempts, not a single attempt. If they’ve an hour to try cracking the safe, the roll represents them spending an hour trying.

But if that doesn’t make sense in context, group check; or narrate past the roll.

doctorbadwolf said:

indeed. But even if you run the modules as is, if you’re getting bless and using inspiration and working together to negate the challenge of lower DC checks, then you’re using more resources on that task than you otherwise would. The game runs fine as is.


You’ve actually told folks, in general, that if they don’t do what you suggest, their game will worse off, in general. Maybe you didn’t mean to, but that’s what you said.



Or use a group check. Or tell them that the roll represents their attempts, not a single attempt. If they’ve an hour to try cracking the safe, the roll represents them spending an hour trying.

But if that doesn’t make sense in context, group check; or narrate past the roll.

Click to expand...

Just as a side note that I am sure everyone notices already- as you observe - a task and a roll may not be just quick to allow an instant toll. The time required for a task is generally set by the GM. There are some defined cases due- especially combat - but locks, searches etc might take a lot longer than a turn or a minute depending on the specifics.

doctorbadwolf said:

Or use a group check. Or tell them that the roll represents their attempts, not a single attempt. If they’ve an hour to try cracking the safe, the roll represents them spending an hour trying.

But if that doesn’t make sense in context, group check; or narrate past the roll.

Click to expand...

Using a group check doesn’t prevent repeated attempts, it judt forces everyone to be involved in the repeated attempts. And if you tell me one roll represents “the whole hour of attempting” when there’s no time pressure, I’ll just blink and say, “ok, I take two hours, let me roll again.” If there’s no time pressure, then “it takes the whole time” doesn’t mean anything. You can say that one roll represents your best effort, and that’s mechanically sound, though personally I find it unsatisfying. “What do you mean it’s my best effort,? I clearly only rolled a 2 out of 20.” That’s why I say ether make sure there’s a cost or consequence, or just let the action be successful.

dave2008 said:

Absolutely! I thought I explained this somewhere (could have been a different thread though), but always ask what the players are doing (actually they tend to just describe it at this point) and then determine if a check it required and whether or not they can help. I thought that was generally assumed - my bad!

Click to expand...

Thats why I say that spelling it out is better. It may be assumed for many experienced DMs and players, but not for everyone, and it’s pretty important, IMO.

5ekyu said:

Just as a side note that I am sure everyone notices already- as you observe - a task and a roll may not be just quick to allow an instant toll. The time required for a task is generally set by the GM. There are some defined cases due- especially combat - but locks, searches etc might take a lot longer than a turn or a minute depending on the specifics.

Click to expand...

Yep. Searching a study with a lot of shelves, drawers, cabinets, and the like will easily take half an hour to an hour.

Charlaquin said:

Using a group check doesn’t prevent repeated attempts, it judt forces everyone to be involved in the repeated attempts. And if you tell me one roll represents “the whole hour of attempting” when there’s no time pressure, I’ll just blink and say, “ok, I take two hours, let me roll again.” If there’s no time pressure, then “it takes the whole time” doesn’t mean anything. You can say that one roll represents your best effort, and that’s mechanically sound, though personally I find it unsatisfying. “What do you mean it’s my best effort,? I clearly only rolled a 2 out of 20.” That’s why I say ether make sure there’s a cost or consequence, or just let the action be successful.

Click to expand...

If there is literally no time pressure of any kind, sure, for some things. Other things just can’t be “brute forced” in terms of attempts. Spending 4 hours pushing on a door isn’t going to get it open. You tried, you failed, either come up with a different approach or move on.

But, if there is absolutely no time pressure, and there isn’t any kind of diminishing return on repeat attempts, why is the idea of DCs and skills even coming up? There is a rule for that.

As for a single check being your “best effort”, it makes plenty of sense. The number on the d20 represents what the game needs it to mean. In this case, if low it means that you weren’t on your A game today, and you couldn’t crack The Thing, or it simply means that you wasted a lot of time cracking it, and there is a setback of some kind as a result.

EDIT: also, as for “I’ll just blink and say, ok I take two hours, let me try again.” No. The answer will be no. The DM decides how a task is resolved. If the DM says that this task will be resolved with 1 check that represents your efforts to figure it out within the time available, that’s it.

And if the DM says, “make a group check, and your results will determine whether you were, as a group, is able to do the thing, and how long it takes” then that’s it. There is no repeat attempt unless the DM says there is. Players don’t declare checks.

doctorbadwolf said:

also, as for “I’ll just blink and say, ok I take two hours, let me try again.” No. The answer will be no. The DM decides how a task is resolved. If the DM says that this task will be resolved with 1 check that represents your efforts to figure it out within the time available, that’s it.

And if the DM says, “make a group check, and your results will determine whether you were, as a group, is able to do the thing, and how long it takes” then that’s it. There is no repeat attempt unless the DM says there is.

Click to expand...

When this happens, I remind my players that "Bob already did his very best, and failed. If you do the same thing he just did, in the same way, you will get the same result he just got." This pushes the ball back into the player's court--they must either think of a new approach to the problem, or move on.

doctorbadwolf said:

Players don’t declare checks.

Click to expand...

I want this printed on a t-shirt, so that I can wear it to my gaming sessions.

doctorbadwolf said:

Players don’t declare checks.

Click to expand...

CleverNickName said:

I want this printed on a t-shirt, so that I can wear it to my gaming sessions.

Click to expand...

LOL!

I find that hilarious simply because I am probably one of the few DMs in 5E who does let them.

I am not a big fan of the narrative style of play, personally, and if my player says "I want to make a Perception check to search for secret doors." I say, "Go for it." The closest I'll come to the narrative for such things is simply asking them where they want to search (e.g. the left wall, the book case, etc.) To me it is a waste of time to narrate most things, like my player saying "I'm going to lift all the books off of the bookcase hoping maybe one triggers a secret door."

It is just as much as a waste of time to say "Rexor curls his fingers under his palm and then thrusts his hand forward, flinging a magical, crackling beam of force energy at the hobgoblin attacking Fiona!" I just let them say "I'm casting Eldritch Blast at the hobgoblin on Annette's fighter," and be done with it.

But, meh, each to their own...

doctorbadwolf said:

If there is literally no time pressure of any kind, sure, for some things. Other things just can’t be “brute forced” in terms of attempts. Spending 4 hours pushing on a door isn’t going to get it open. You tried, you failed, either come up with a different approach or move on.

Click to expand...

If it’s not within your power to do it regardless of how many times you try, then there shouldn’t be a roll in the first place. You just fail.

doctorbadwolf said:

But, if there is absolutely no time pressure, and there isn’t any kind of diminishing return on repeat attempts, why is the idea of DCs and skills even coming up? There is a rule for that.

Click to expand...

That was my point, if there’s nothing preventing repeat attempts and no time pressure, then there’s no roll.

doctorbadwolf said:

As for a single check being your “best effort”, it makes plenty of sense. The number on the d20 represents what the game needs it to mean. In this case, if low it means that you weren’t on your A game today, and you couldn’t crack The Thing, or it simply means that you wasted a lot of time cracking it, and there is a setback of some kind as a result.

Click to expand...

Right, which is why I conceded that it’s mechanically sound. The trouble is, it’s unsatisfying to see the die come up a 2 and be told that was your character’s best effort. Bull poop it was my best effort, there are 18 numbers I could have rolled that would have represented a better effort if one of them had come up on the die, so clearly that wasn’t my best.

doctorbadwolf said:

EDIT: also, as for “I’ll just blink and say, ok I take two hours, let me try again.” No. The answer will be no. The DM decides how a task is resolved. If the DM says that this task will be resolved with 1 check that represents your efforts to figure it out within the time available, that’s it.

Click to expand...

Obviously, but that method of resolving a task with no time pressure is in my opinion a bad one, because it is intensely unsatisfying to players.

doctorbadwolf said:

And if the DM says, “make a group check, and your results will determine whether you were, as a group, is able to do the thing, and how long it takes” then that’s it. There is no repeat attempt unless the DM says there is. Players don’t declare checks.

Click to expand...

Players don’t declare checks, but the do declare their character’s actions. If you tell them they don’t succeed, and they tell you, “ok, we keep trying,” then you’re going to need to tell them why trying again isn’t being resolved the same way as it was the first time they tried, and the answer “because I’m the DM and I said so” is in my opinion a poor one.

doctorbadwolf said:

also, as for “I’ll just blink and say, ok I take two hours, let me try again.” No. The answer will be no. The DM decides how a task is resolved. If the DM says that this task will be resolved with 1 check that represents your efforts to figure it out within the time available, that’s it.

And if the DM says, “make a group check, and your results will determine whether you were, as a group, is able to do the thing, and how long it takes” then that’s it. There is no repeat attempt unless the DM says there is.

Click to expand...

CleverNickName said:

When this happens, I remind my players that "Bob already did his very best, and failed. If you do the same thing he just did, in the same way, you will get the same result he just got." This pushes the ball back into the player's court--they must either think of a new approach to the problem, or move on.

Click to expand...

I really like how you handle that @CleverNickName - I'm going to use that in my sessions next time I am presented with the "can I try, too" dice dominoes...

doctorbadwolf said:

Players don’t declare checks.

Click to expand...

CleverNickName said:

I want this printed on a t-shirt, so that I can wear it to my gaming sessions.

Click to expand...

Sign me up for one!

James Grover said:

LOL!

I find that hilarious simply because I am probably one of the few DMs in 5E who does let them.

I am not a big fan of the narrative style of play, personally, and if my player says "I want to make a Perception check to search for secret doors." I say, "Go for it." The closest I'll come to the narrative for such things is simply asking them where they want to search (e.g. the left wall, the book case, etc.) To me it is a waste of time to narrate most things, like my player saying "I'm going to lift all the books off of the bookcase hoping maybe one triggers a secret door."

It is just as much as a waste of time to say "Rexor curls his fingers under his palm and then thrusts his hand forward, flinging a magical, crackling beam of force energy at the hobgoblin attacking Fiona!" I just let them say "I'm casting Eldritch Blast at the hobgoblin on Annette's fighter," and be done with it.

But, meh, each to their own...

Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that the player needs to narrate all (or even any of) their attack rolls. But when it comes to pulling off a creative maneuver in combat or doing most anything in the exploration and social interaction pillars in 5e, it is literally (PHB pg 6) the players' job to declare the approach and goal of their PCs' actions. The DM can then grant auto-success for a creative approach or auto-fail for some goal that is currently impossible. The player shouldn't short circuit that process by invoking mechanics from their character sheet. The DM then calls for a roll only if there is a meaningful consequence of failure. Then again, if your table is having fun doing it your way, carry on.

DM Dave1 said:

Nobody is saying that the player needs to narrate all (or even any of) their attack rolls. But when it comes to pulling off a creative maneuver in combat or doing most anything in the exploration and social interaction pillars in 5e, it is literally (PHB pg 6) the players' job to declare the approach and goal of their PCs' actions. The DM can then grant auto-success for a creative approach or auto-fail for some goal that is currently impossible. The player shouldn't short circuit that process by invoking mechanics from their character sheet. The DM then calls for a roll only if there is an interesting consequence of failure. Then again, if your table is having fun doing it your way, carry on.

Click to expand...

Oh, I know. I just find it... interesting... how much a narrative is supposed to be part of 5E. We have tons of fun, and I am sure others have fun playing a more narrative style, too. Personally, I couldn't stand it if I was playing, though, and probably wouldn't stay with that group if it ever happened. We find "short circuiting the process" just moves the game along more quickly. But, yeah, that's just our group.

But, you know, I would still be tempted to buy one of those shirts.

How about this? I could change the color if people don't like it (I like orange...):