D&D 5E (2014) Mitigating players spamming Help, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and oh I’ll roll too?

[jasper]

hmm Help my players are not role playing but roll playing. Suggestions. Shock collars for the players. But watch it, Jasper he is into that stuff. Acting classes. But beware that Umbran will show up in a tutu and beanie.
If players are spamming rolls, just say no.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Working together as a Team also works on knowledge skills in real life. But only if both have some knowledge.
Bardic inspiration can't help you know something you never heard of. But you may remember better or draw a new conclusion you neber thought of.

 

[robus]

I deal with "I'll roll too" in a couple of ways:

I'll offer the original roller advantage (so they can roll again) because the other player wants to "help". If it's something the other player could reasonably assist with.

Or I'll ask the new roller to explain what is different about their approach to the same goal before they roll (if they rolled before I ask then it doesn't count of course).

But I've also established that "everyone rolls" is not acceptable at my table because it pretty much guarantees success and thus spoils the fun of occasional failure.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

One rule I’ve instituted at my larger table is that you can only make a skill check if you’re trained in the skill (in some cases, I make exceptions for Athletics and Perception). Otherwise, with eight people rolling, it’s only a matter of probability.

Another thing I do is that I tell them that either one person can make the check, or we make it as a group check. This helps with dogpiling on a skill check.

Guidance is trickier to deal with, but if I’m running a group skill check, the person casting guidance counts as a fail, so they have to weigh that against one person getting a better check.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m rooting for my PCs to succeed. But I don’t want to trivialize skill checks.

 

[abirdcall]

One thing to keep in mind is that in 5e players don't 'use skills'. They describe what their character is doing. Then the DM decides whether they succeed, fail, or if the outcome is uncertain. In the latter they usually make an ability check which may add proficiency if the DM decides a certain skill applies.

Here is how we play:

- The DM introduces the scene.
- The DM then asks each player what their character is doing.
- The DM then resolves the events in an order that makes sense.

Example:

The characters enter a room in a dungeon which appears to be an old musty library. A person who looks completely out of sorts is sitting at a table. The players have a brief conversation with the person in order to establish the scene. Things like who are you, how did you get here, what are you doing, etc.

Then the DM says, okay what are you doing?

Player 1 - I search the library, I want to see if anything has been recently moved or taken, pay attention to things like if something looks like a different age than the rest, that sort of thing. I don't want to disturb things too much just yet so I don't tear things apart.
Player 2 - I help in character 1's search. I have the Guidance spell so I'm going to cast that for them too.
Player 3 - I want to get to know that NPC more. Find out what they know about x, y, and z. I don't trust them so I'm going to ask them about the same things different ways, see if anything is up.
Player 4 - I stand guard by the door that we haven't been through yet, keeping my ear to it but also looking out into the room for anything that might jump out at us.

Resolution:

Player 1 and 2 it is pretty easy to spot that there appears to be a missing scroll tube as there is a spot without dust. The other scroll tubes in the area appear to be historical documents like maps. The rest of the books appear to be mundane affairs of ancient history, texts on stonework and smithing, that sort of thing.

Player 3 - The NPC tells you what they know about the questions you asked. Give me a Wisdom (Insight) roll to determine if you can tell what sort of state they are in. Okay, so at first you thought their strange manner was just a result of lack of food and rest, but after a bit you have noticed that every time you asked for anything of importance they paused for a bit and their face went blank of emotion. Something is not quite right here.

Player 3 - 'Okay I tell the others, I don't have a good feeling about this'

Player 4 - Make a Wisdom (Perception) check. Okay, you hear strange noises from beyond the door. They are a deep sound, and rhythmic, almost like breathing. Only more like a large body moving about but you hear no footsteps.

Okay, quickly, everyone what do you do? The characters have a few seconds to assess the situation - something terrible is coming - Do they guard the door? What do they do about the NPC? etc.


In a purely social encounter I ask the players what they are going to say - One player will either say it or describe what they are saying. Based on the NPC they might again succeed, fail, roll perhaps with advantage or disadvantage. Then another player gets a chance to say something if they want to, and so on until everyone has engaged with the NPC. There is no 'help' here, you're either talking to them or not. Though, maybe if you had an ability like telepathy you could help them, coaching on what to say. These sorts of things are what the DM is for.

If a fight has broken out the PCs can still talk to the people they are fighting, in that case they get to say something on each of their turns.

 

[smbakeresq]

First off, the bad guys get all those benefits also. Those useless minions can all take the help action to make sure all the heavy hitters attack with advantage. Make sure they do so.

The greatest example of Guidance in use is Chirrut Imewe in Rogue One. "I am one with the Force. The Force is with me." If your PC says that then I will let you use guidance on Initiative. But otherwise, yes Guidance is just one of the best spells in the game. Guess what though, enemy spellcasters know this also, and as DM mine always roll good....

I don't allow just anyone to work together to do something, they must have a relevant knowledge. It isn't said in RAW, but clearly that's what's implied. It could be something different though if the player RP it well, the Diviner might be able to help the rogue with a disarm check if they player said "I know the history of this style of tomb through my studies, I want to see if I have relevant knowledge about how the builders used traps in them" would get a check to get some type of knowledge to help the rogue.

 

[FXR]

I believe your problem is not with the rules as such, but with the application of thereof.

You could state that, as many GMs do, that the player has to provide a modicum of information on their actions. So, sure the bard can use the help action, when another character, but the bard's player must explain how he is helping. Perhaps, he brings another argument, perhaps he uses his good looks, but he has to give you an explanation. You could simply state the Following (meta) rule: "Explain me what your character is doing, and I'll see how it qualifies according to the rules".

Also, the Help action can only be used, when the character can provide some meaningful assistance to another. For instance, a character can help another trying to keep a door shut while the orks are trying to bash it open, but you can't help another character recall a specific information, for example, making an Intelligence (Arcana check).

I wouldn't use group checks for knowledge skill. Tony the wizard has no reason to fail his Arcana check because Rodriguo the barbarian has no clue on eldtritch things from the Far Realm. Group checks are appropriate for navigation hazards, stealth and a few things, where a failure by several characters may cause problems for the party.

 

[Shiroiken]

I've had this issue a time or two, and it's not hard to fix.

Bardic Inspiration and Guidance are abilities like any other. Unless you're particular about having casters describe every spell they cast and warriors every sword swing, it's a bit unfair to put them under the spotlight to use these abilities. The only limitation I put on these is they must have already been used before the call for a check, and they can't be used for activities that take longer than their duration. They'll still get used a lot (especially guidance), but the player chose to get the ability, they should be allowed to benefit from it.

As [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] said, Help is a combat action, working together is for out of combat. Players who do not actively participate do not provide any benefit. The two of them could both participate, granting advantage, but they can't come in after the fact (such as to save a bad roll).

I use group checks far more than suggested in the PHB, because I feel it's a good way to adjudicate when the group works together. For example, I use it when the group is attempting to be stealthy, because I assume that the people good at stealth will help the clutz in the plate mail. Lore checks are also done as group checks, except I don't punish failure; instead each success grants a little more information.

Oh, one other thing you didn't mention: I don't allow rechecks, pretty much ever. The check indicates your ability to succeed or fail at a task; trying again will get the same result. The only way to attempt the check again is if something major has changed since the original check.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] [MENTION=6801558]robus[/MENTION] [MENTION=6748898]ad_hoc[/MENTION] A lot of advice about “Players don’t decide when to roll, the DM does.” Yep! My issue is not that I don’t practice that; it is that I am getting worn down constantly policing the players on this issue & constantly finding new ways to explain this specific to a scenario as one or more players eagerly reach for their dice. It’s tiring for me because I love to say “yes” to my players & the policing part is my least favorite part of DMing.

“No, you can’t Help/Work Together because you haven’t said anything that would be helpful in this negotiation. Is there something you’d like to speak up and add to support the Bard’s arguement?”

“No, Bard player, you can’t roll to beat the druid’s Nature check because you haven’t proposed doing anything substantially different. Besides the Druid is the *best* in your party at Nature lore. You might try a new approach?”

“No, Sorcerer player, you can’t make a History check here. Because nothing in your background as a native of the forests near Waterdeep, a hermit, or a draconic sorcerer would account for you knowing anything about Chultan tribal history. Maybe you’d know something pertaining to dragons...”

“Hold on, Rogue player, why did you just roll a d20? Oh, Stealth? So you’re also trying to sneak up and scout out the enemy encampment? Weren’t you holding the party’s light source? And didn’t you say you wanted to cast guidance which has a verbal component on another PC?”

“Guys, please, why don’t you discuss your approach as a group before breaking off and doing a bunch of things individually? There’s a group skill check I would have called for, had I know your intentions/plan first.”

Every session since I started DMing this group about 11 sessions ago (January), I’ve found myself doing this kind of policing. Some players are more egregious than others, but it’s definitely a group issue. They came from a Pathfinder background. Not sure if this is a system difference thing, but it really feels like I have to keep reminding everyone. Heck, I’m even making the creative effort of weighing how their PC background/race/class/story influence what they know in regards to lore checks. I’d love to find a DM trick that helps them to police themselves better so I can free up more energy/brain space for creative DMing coolness.

 

[Quickleaf]

I've had this issue a time or two, and it's not hard to fix.

Bardic Inspiration and Guidance are abilities like any other. Unless you're particular about having casters describe every spell they cast and warriors every sword swing, it's a bit unfair to put them under the spotlight to use these abilities. The only limitation I put on these is they must have already been used before the call for a check, and they can't be used for activities that take longer than their duration. They'll still get used a lot (especially guidance), but the player chose to get the ability, they should be allowed to benefit from it.

Interesting. In every 5e table I’ve sat at where Bardic Inspiration or Guidance was used, I saw it used at the time of the check. But you’re saying the correct way is to use them before any check is called for? So the players approach the Duke’s estate, descend to the entrance to the Tomb, or are about to study a book of arcane lore...and Bardic Inspiration or Guidance would be used in advance?

I use group checks far more than suggested in the PHB, because I feel it's a good way to adjudicate when the group works together. For example, I use it when the group is attempting to be stealthy, because I assume that the people good at stealth will help the clutz in the plate mail. Lore checks are also done as group checks, except I don't punish failure; instead each success grants a little more information.

With group lore checks, do you have the whole party (or whomever is involved/interested) roll, irrespective of proficiency in the pertinent skill?

Oh, one other thing you didn't mention: I don't allow rechecks, pretty much ever. The check indicates your ability to succeed or fail at a task; trying again will get the same result. The only way to attempt the check again is if something major has changed since the original check.

Do you mean you individually don’t allow re-checks, so the Rogue couldn’t attempt to pick the lock but the Warlock with thieves tools proficiency could try? Or do you mean you don’t allow re-checks systemically, so once the Rogue fails to pick a lock that lock is unpickable to the entire party until something major changes?