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

[GameOgre]

A real life situation that I have seen at the game table was two people trying to remember a game rule and one of them was on the right track and starting to remember but the other guy helping him went down the wrong thinking trail and the guy about to solve it got all mixed up.

I've seen the same thing happen in just about every other real life skill check type situation from stealth to climbing, often with some real hilarious results.

But something in real life is totally misrepresented in the game rules.

The help action doesn't require a roll of any sort so it's always successful and never hinders the character being helped and that's just flat out wrong. Now I'm not saying it should be all the other way either. Plenty of times getting help...works great!

I just find it so crazy that something so common place is so.......unrealistic.

Would it really be so unfun if the strength 6 wizard couldn't offer the 20 strength barbarian much help in the way of lifting that gate up by hand? Wouldn't instead it be amazing to see him try so hard and badly that the barbarian found it more difficult to do because of the kind Wizards(Help)?

 

[Pauper]

There's a certain class of player for whom, if a particular action has any chance of hindering rather than helping things, then that action will never be taken.

5E in general is very much in the 'all upside' design philosophy -- there's very little that has potential downside, and even the few things that do (Wild Magic Sorcerer, for example) have much more that's helpful or at least benign than actively harmful to the party.

--
Pauper

 

[neogod22]

A real life situation that I have seen at the game table was two people trying to remember a game rule and one of them was on the right track and starting to remember but the other guy helping him went down the wrong thinking trail and the guy about to solve it got all mixed up.

I've seen the same thing happen in just about every other real life skill check type situation from stealth to climbing, often with some real hilarious results.

But something in real life is totally misrepresented in the game rules.

The help action doesn't require a roll of any sort so it's always successful and never hinders the character being helped and that's just flat out wrong. Now I'm not saying it should be all the other way either. Plenty of times getting help...works great!

I just find it so crazy that something so common place is so.......unrealistic.

Would it really be so unfun if the strength 6 wizard couldn't offer the 20 strength barbarian much help in the way of lifting that gate up by hand? Wouldn't instead it be amazing to see him try so hard and badly that the barbarian found it more difficult to do because of the kind Wizards(Help)?

Well, using your example, when 2 people lift something, it's always easier. The weight is distributed between the 2 characters so no one is lifting all of the weight. It's not to say that the weight has to be even, let's say the item weighs 200 pounds, a d let's say for example that the weight you can bench is 10×STR. The barbarian would struggle to carry the item by himself, but the wizard on the other side can take up to 60lbs of the barbarian's load off his hands making it easier.

With other skills, we usually only let people proficient in the skill assist to give the roller advantage.

 

[iserith]

The Help action is for combat; Working Together is for non-combat situations. There are two restrictions on Working Together: (1) A character can only provide help if the task is one he or she could attempt alone and (2) A character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be helpful, which the DM of course determines.

The standard rules for adjudicating actions also apply here. You decide whether a given action declaration to help someone else succeeds, fails, or has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful chance of failure. In the latter determination, an ability check is appropriate.

 

[Jester David]

I think I sum up my thoughts on the realism of the Help action with this:

 

[Sunseeker]

The Help action does not, IMO provide enough of a benefit to the Helpee to warrant "downsides". Also, as pointed out, you can't stack the effect, so there's no real point in "everyone pitching in" at the risk of something bad happening.

If the Help action allowed the Helpee to get an auto-success, at the risk of something bad happening, that's fine.

Or even if there was some kind of exponential Help action. Like, lets say we have 5 players.
Player A asks for Help.
Player B Helps. +2, no risk.
Player C Helps. +4 (stacking, not another +2). 10% chance of failure.
Player D Helps. +8. 25% chance of failure.
Player E Helps. +16. 50% chance of failure.
-please keep in mind these numbers were pulled out of my arse. I do not intend them to be even remotely balanced or reasonable within 5e.

Now you've got an interesting game of balancing the risk with the reward. You may have a +30 to that check, but you've also got a 50/50 chance of failure.

 

[ClaytonCross]

A real life situation that I have seen at the game table was two people trying to remember a game rule and one of them was on the right track and starting to remember but the other guy helping him went down the wrong thinking trail and the guy about to solve it got all mixed up.

I've seen the same thing happen in just about every other real life skill check type situation from stealth to climbing, often with some real hilarious results.

But something in real life is totally misrepresented in the game rules.

The help action doesn't require a roll of any sort so it's always successful and never hinders the character being helped and that's just flat out wrong. Now I'm not saying it should be all the other way either. Plenty of times getting help...works great!

I just find it so crazy that something so common place is so.......unrealistic.

Would it really be so unfun if the strength 6 wizard couldn't offer the 20 strength barbarian much help in the way of lifting that gate up by hand? Wouldn't instead it be amazing to see him try so hard and badly that the barbarian found it more difficult to do because of the kind Wizards(Help)?

I curious but if the player who gets advantage rolls double 1s then couldn't you still narrate the reason for the low role is the other person helping?

I feel like the mechanic gives a second dice but the usefulness of the dice is random in that …

1. if the primary person would have succeeded on the test on the first roll then the help might have made it easier but was more sharing the work than needing the help.

2. if the help dice is lower than the first it (and so the helping player) provides no help and if neither succeed perhaps was in the way.

3. if the help dice is higher than the first dice but not high enough for a success on the test then it (and so the helping player) provides no help or so little it does matter.

4. if the help dice is higher than the first dice but only enough for a success on the test because of primary players bonus then it (and so the helping player) was helpful.

5. if the help dice is higher than the first dice, in fact so high that it would have succeeded on the test without the bonus by the primary player, then the "helping player" basically pushed the primary out of the way and did it instead of actually helping.

So if you don't like how the help action functions, make the helping player roll the advantage dice for action and narrate the results as described above.

The only thing about this system is that it doesn't allow more than one proficient person to help. So you could add a +1 for every person beyond the first that can and does help. That would mean, for example, if your trying to push a boulder off a cliff with a standard 4 player party and everyone helping, the strongest player could get advantage +2 as long as the GM says there is enough room for all 4 to push on the boulder.

 

[Shiroiken]

I've modified the working together option for my game. If it's something that multiple people could work on together, and each helper could either help or hurt the effort, I use the following system.

Group declares a primary character, and everyone else participating makes the check, usually against a DC 10. Subtract the number of failures from successes, then use the following modifier based on the total:

<0 - Disadvantage
0 - normal
1 - advantage
2 - advantage and +2 to the check
3 - advantage and +4 to the check
4 - advantage and +6 to the check
etc.

Other times I prefer to use group checks, such as in the barn raising example.

 

[Li Shenron]

The help action doesn't require a roll of any sort so it's always successful and never hinders the character being helped and that's just flat out wrong.

As iserith already said, Help is successful if and only if the DM allows you to provide help in the first place. The description of the Help action in the Combat chapter is perhaps missing a reference to the more general rule of Working Together in a previous chapter, but Working Together explains how it just isn't always possible (and specifies that the Help action is merely the combat application of the Working Together rule).

 

[Keravath]

5e rules are intended to be simple to use, understand and run. They also usually represent the average.

As a result, although help can vary from completely solving the problem to actually being a hindrance, on average, helping someone (assuming you know what you are doing ... which is where the proficiency rules come in) is more likely than not to make the situation easier which in 5e grants advantage on the roll.

The idea is ... player one says I am proficient in the skill required to solve the problem ... player two says they are also proficient and will help player 1 ... player 1 rolls with advantage. The procedure minimizes die rolls and keeps the procedure simple.