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

[Ovinomancer]

Isn't this the same as a group check instead of the help action? On a group check you have to get a majority so if a bunch of un-proficient players help their failures increase the chance of failure. Like a group stealth check where you have on person without stealth proficiency in heavy plate so they have disadvantage. Individually that person would likely just fail but as part of a group check they are basically expected to fail and the rest of them try to bring them up however with a group of 4 to 6 is pretty easy to have half your group "tanks" or "casters" that might fall under this and would cause the stealthy rogue to be spotted when the group fails.

So added risk to those who are skilled but added benefit to the group for those who would likely fail. This means its worth trying but at the same time there is an extra risk to some characters. Not a new rule though, it just a group test instead of a help action.

No, not that at all. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Anyone who fails the roll specifically suffers a setback. Example: A player declares an action to search a room. Another player declares he's also searching. Both roll. If both succeed, groovy. If either succeed, the goal is accomplished, but the player that fails suffers a setback (perhaps, in this case, in finding the goal the player that fails slips and creates a loud noise, or suffers a minor injury). If both fail, the goal isn't achieved and both suffer a setback. In a group check, so long as enough of the rolls succeed, the goal succeeds without setback. If enough don't, the goal doesn't succeed. This adds risk to assisting specifically.

As I said, I'm mulling it over, I haven't even sold myself that this is a good idea.

 

[ClaytonCross]

No, not that at all. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Anyone who fails the roll specifically suffers a setback. Example: A player declares an action to search a room. Another player declares he's also searching. Both roll. If both succeed, groovy. If either succeed, the goal is accomplished, but the player that fails suffers a setback (perhaps, in this case, in finding the goal the player that fails slips and creates a loud noise, or suffers a minor injury). If both fail, the goal isn't achieved and both suffer a setback. In a group check, so long as enough of the rolls succeed, the goal succeeds without setback. If enough don't, the goal doesn't succeed. This adds risk to assisting specifically.

As I said, I'm mulling it over, I haven't even sold myself that this is a good idea.

I would point out that nothing you said in this post is necessarily specific to help actions or group tests. It just seems like your saying a low failures you your games have greater consequences than failing the test.

Even a single character running the test could have the same consequences.

At that point its not about "punishing group effort" its just your style of play. Like allowing critical fails on skill tests even though the book actually only does that for combat. So sure, more people performing a test gives more chances of critical failures effecting players during the test naturally but you don't really have to change the "help action" or "group tests" to accomplish what your doing, just allow for critical failures on all tests. If your doing it on group tests and not single person tests... then you would be punishing group efforts and team work on a team...

 

[CapnZapp]

The game's DC are balanced for the straight roll. (Yes, they're often easy but that's intentional)

If you allow the players to trivially gain advantage on these rolls (such as by helping) the system breaks down.

Likewise with Guidance or Bardic Inspiration.

In combat, there's a huge cost involved, namely spending your action, so there's everything's fine.

But out of combat, unless you view the trivialization of skill checks as a feature, don't allow these bonuses, full stop.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would point out that nothing you said in this post is necessarily specific to help actions or group tests. It just seems like your saying a low failures you your games have greater consequences than failing the test.

Even a single character running the test could have the same consequences.

At that point its not about "punishing group effort" its just your style of play. Like allowing critical fails on skill tests even though the book actually only does that for combat. So sure, more people performing a test gives more chances of critical failures effecting players during the test naturally but you don't really have to change the "help action" or "group tests" to accomplish what your doing, just allow for critical failures on all tests. If your doing it on group tests and not single person tests... then you would be punishing group efforts and team work on a team...

You're so off it's not even funny.

How about you stop assigning me motivations you make up from things I haven't said and just stick to you, yeah?

 

[ClaytonCross]

You're so off it's not even funny.

How about you stop assigning me motivations you make up from things I haven't said and just stick to you, yeah?

Wow that escalated quickly. I apparently wrote in such a way that it could be misinterpreted as an attack or something. Please know that was not my intent I am just trying to have a conversation. I am going to try to break your statements to what I pulled out. Maybe you can explain it so that I can understand or I can explain myself better. Good luck.

Anyone who fails the roll specifically suffers a setback.

I read this as failure have consequences, the example I used was bad things happen on critical fails. My point was that this statement does not require it to be a group or help test so it could be a single test and a solution like critical fails is not reliant on the help test.

Example: A player declares an action to search a room. Another player declares he's also searching. Both roll. If both succeed, groovy.

Sure success has no failure... I think we are tracking here.

If either succeed, the goal is accomplished, but the player that fails suffers a setback (perhaps, in this case, in finding the goal the player that fails slips and creates a loud noise, or suffers a minor injury).

So if you have a group test (I will use stealth) and someone critically fails, even thought the group as a whole succeeds the critical failure might mean that while a normal stealth test would succeed due to half or more succeeding in the test, the one who critically fails gets spotted anyway the fell down and made a huge noise. So the the group is hidden butt that one individual is not even thought the group test was a success. That could happen with a single test too, in that one person might fail the test and be spotted by a single guard who might have called for aid or engaged him, but due to a critical fail knocked over a tent pole causing the tent to collapse that his friends were hiding behind revealing them all while moving away.

If both fail, the goal isn't achieved and both suffer a setback. In a group check, so long as enough of the rolls succeed, the goal succeeds without setback. If enough don't, the goal doesn't succeed. This adds risk to assisting specifically.

Right, using stealth again, the more people fail the less likely to succeed in the test. That is its own setback. Multiple critical failures might mean that a few of them are spotted despite a group pass or that since enough of them failed that the group no longer passes they are not only aware they are their but they have caused so much noise that people who don't even have line of sight are stepping out to see whats going on.

As I said, I'm mulling it over, I haven't even sold myself that this is a good idea.

Sure, and my intent was just to give you a point of consideration. Per your stated goal and how you described it, just doing critical failures (which are technically not in the book but commonly used "homebrew" due to misinterpretation anyway) you could achieve what you stated and described in your example. My only caution was that if you use critical failures, that you use them all the time not just for group tests or help actions. Nothing about what you described as I read it precludes it and if you don't treat them the same players will only do solo tests to avoid critical failures seeing them as punishment you only use in group tests. That said, you could re-invent the wheel, it that is all you want to do. I am just saying their is a common home brew practice that does what your suggesting. It also scales up the risk in groups because the more players you have the more chance in a single test to role a 1. You could do it on failures in general but I think it would make group tests "setbacks" so common you will have a "group" that will want to always work alone.

If you think I am so far of the mark... Please give me a specific example of where I am wrong. I am curious for multiple reasons now what it is your saying I don't understand.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Wow that escalated quickly. I apparently wrote in such a way that it could be misinterpreted as an attack or something. Please know that was not my intent I am just trying to have a conversation. I am going to try to break your statements to what I pulled out. Maybe you can explain it so that I can understand or I can explain myself better. Good luck.



I read this as failure have consequences, the example I used was bad things happen on critical fails. My point was that this statement does not require it to be a group or help test so it could be a single test and a solution like critical fails is not reliant on the help test.



Sure success has no failure... I think we are tracking here.



So if you have a group test (I will use stealth) and someone critically fails, even thought the group as a whole succeeds the critical failure might mean that while a normal stealth test would succeed due to half or more succeeding in the test, the one who critically fails gets spotted anyway the fell down and made a huge noise. So the the group is hidden butt that one individual is not even thought the group test was a success. That could happen with a single test too, in that one person might fail the test and be spotted by a single guard who might have called for aid or engaged him, but due to a critical fail knocked over a tent pole causing the tent to collapse that his friends were hiding behind revealing them all while moving away.



Right, using stealth again, the more people fail the less likely to succeed in the test. That is its own setback. Multiple critical failures might mean that a few of them are spotted despite a group pass or that since enough of them failed that the group no longer passes they are not only aware they are their but they have caused so much noise that people who don't even have line of sight are stepping out to see whats going on.



Sure, and my intent was just to give you a point of consideration. Per your stated goal and how you described it, just doing critical failures (which are technically not in the book but commonly used "homebrew" due to misinterpretation anyway) you could achieve what you stated and described in your example. My only caution was that if you use critical failures, that you use them all the time not just for group tests or help actions. Nothing about what you described as I read it precludes it and if you don't treat them the same players will only do solo tests to avoid critical failures seeing them as punishment you only use in group tests. That said, you could re-invent the wheel, it that is all you want to do. I am just saying their is a common home brew practice that does what your suggesting. It also scales up the risk in groups because the more players you have the more chance in a single test to role a 1. You could do it on failures in general but I think it would make group tests "setbacks" so common you will have a "group" that will want to always work alone.

If you think I am so far of the mark... Please give me a specific example of where I am wrong. I am curious for multiple reasons now what it is your saying I don't understand.

I'm not, at all, talking about group checks.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I'm not, at all, talking about group checks.

Ok, then why did you use group checks in your example? IF your just talking about failure have consequences, then nothing I said is wrong...which would mean I am not "so far off" but spot on.... So can you explain what has you upset and what is actually wrong with what I have said? If not it seems like you just want to disagree because you wanted failures to hurt players during group checks but don't actually have a real reason. I am not saying that is actually the case but both your dismissive answers angry answers come across that way due to lack of support in explanation that would allow further development in the discussion particularly since they seem in direct contrast to your original statement to which I replied. Can you try and actually explain your comments or are you just going to be angry and dismissive for the sake of "your wrong, but I am not telling you how or why … because I don't really know... I just want to say your wrong because I don't like that your right." Again, not saying that is actually what your thinking, I am saying that is how your coming across due to lack of any substantial answer even after a request for clarification. If you can clarify it would dramatically help your case.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok, then why did you use group checks in your example? IF your just talking about failure have consequences, then nothing I said is wrong...which would mean I am not "so far off" but spot on.... So can you explain what has you upset and what is actually wrong with what I have said? If not it seems like you just want to disagree because you wanted failures to hurt players during group checks but don't actually have a real reason. I am not saying that is actually the case but both your dismissive answers angry answers come across that way due to lack of support in explanation that would allow further development in the discussion particularly since they seem in direct contrast to your original statement to which I replied. Can you try and actually explain your comments or are you just going to be angry and dismissive for the sake of "your wrong, but I am not telling you how or why … because I don't really know... I just want to say your wrong because I don't like that your right." Again, not saying that is actually what your thinking, I am saying that is how your coming across due to lack of any substantial answer even after a request for clarification. If you can clarify it would dramatically help your case.

I say I'm not talking about group checks and you immediately ask me why I talked about group checks, then? I didn't.

I'd try to explain again, but so far you're three for three on telling me what I'm talking about instead of listening, so I'm disinclined, especially since it was a thought experience to begin with -- I have nothing invested in it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The game's DC are balanced for the straight roll. (Yes, they're often easy but that's intentional)

The games DCs outside of combat aren't remotely balanced. That's why there's so much advice around which is basically "don't ask for rolls unless you can't avoid it", along with "try to convince your DM that you just succeed without having to roll".

 

[ClaytonCross]

I say I'm not talking about group checks and you immediately ask me why I talked about group checks, then? I didn't.

I'd try to explain again, but so far you're three for three on telling me what I'm talking about instead of listening, so I'm disinclined, especially since it was a thought experience to begin with -- I have nothing invested in it.

So trying to decipher what appears to me to be somewhat vague comments, I think your calling to independent test by two different players not a group test but hold them accountable as a group.....? In my mind the when you let multiple people role for the same test in the same location and create "setbacks" that could make group participation accountable and impact party members who are present... it is a group test, however it seems like your trying to counting second attempts by another party member as a completely separate test while applying group consequences.

Your example restated with my translation: (Maybe wrong but I am honestly trying to read you in text and this is what I got)

Player 1 does investigation check, succeeds but announces a roll like a 15, Player 2 thinks a higher success might have revealed something more so wants to try again with a second investigation check, rolls a 18 and finds nothing new but does not cause problems.

Player 1 does investigation check, fails and finds nothing with a role of 5, Player 2 thinks he can succeed where player one failed rolls a 15 and succeeds, but you want to add a penalty because you don't like check spam test because Player 2 doesn't know why player 1 found nothing unless player 2 is metagaming and knows the role is low. My solution to dealing with that is that I would make it a group check that they can both do if they agree to join into the search when it is announced, if not, then they already stated that they had not interest in searching and any attempt to search after nothing is found would be meta gaming and not allowed. Alternately, you said, " Another player declares he's also searching." to me this reads as a player joining into a group test which is different from a help action as they use their own modifiers instead of giving the player advantage. Where the down side is that if a third person helps and two of them fail the entire test is a failure no matter how good the successful test was.... But you said your not doing that. Which means your letting multiple people check separately on the same test in the same room as individuals even though that amounts to a group searching the room and is the reason for group tests as I understand it. If that is the case its your lack of requiring a group check as a restraint to endless individual tests that is creating the problem, and my confusion on your prior posts. The one case where having a group test is not as good an option is when you have a group of two and their is no chance of less than a 50% success, its only a failure if both fail. In that case you can consider it the aid could be counter productive or on positive. If it could be counter productive, give the primary the help action, have the other role the advantage dice with the primary players stats and narrate the result. If it can only help, like multiple people pushing a bolder, then allow two man group test where its just more likely (but not guaranteed) that they succeed duo to having more weight behind it. Your searching example, it reasonable that more eyes and ideas would only get them too look in more places with more perspectives and a better chance of finding something but if you disagree and you think the second person could be in the way "destroying evidence" then make it a help action.

Player 1 and Player 2 fail, bad things happen failure is its own punishment but if your adding "setbacks" to that just because of the redundant checks your punishing team work on top of that.

My overall point is that I would make them work together if they are together doing the same thing. If I got your intent right this time its because I would consider individuals in a group doing checks as individuals in the same location as group activities and make them roll accordingly because that is what I understand a group test to be for, unless their is some competition between them and they have no intention of sharing and working together with what they find. At that point I would treat them as separately but I would run one and then the other with an initiative role and the success of first might allow the hinderance of the other if they so chose, however that's going to be very rare.

...Any closer?