This seems a tad extreme. I would not consider someone who is not proficient in the required skill(s) able to "meaningfully contribute" as required for working together. Thus, no advantage. Conversely, if two people are proficient in a skill and are working together, they should get advantage on the check I would think. It seems fine to me. Am I missing something (I haven't look a the working together guidelines in a long time)?
I'd say that there are many times where a non proficient person can easily help, because helping someone with a task doesn't necessarily mean doing the same thing they're doing. For instance, when my sailor character is navigating a river in a small craft that normally requires two people, my wife's unskilled goliath ranger used her Athletics to help me, negating the disadvantage I'd have had from piloting a two person boat solo. Another time, we had a small crew on a vessel, my wife was scouting ahead of us for obstacles, and my superior knowledge of the river let me help her in her Perception checks, which in turn gave the the oarsmen and pilot avoid dangers and get us there quickly and safely on the swift moving springtime river.
Other times, providing physical leverage, performing feats of strength, playing music, getting a bar crowd singing a loud song, various knowledge skills, even cooking a filling but light meal to provide day-long energy without sluggishness, and all kinds of other things, have allowed teamwork to provide Advantage, or negate Disadvantage, out of combat. Some stuff just can't be done without teamwork, as well.
I don't think it necessary to be proficient in the same skill being used, is the point.
I don’t get why you would ban advantage from cooperation. If I need to change a tire, it’s a hell of a lot easier and faster with a second person.
When someone wants to help another character in an out of combat task, I ask them what skill they will use. If it’s appropriate, then they get advantage. It’s obviously easier to move a stone if two people are pushing it, so if the secondary character says, ‘I use athletics to help’, then obviously it will help.
It’s harder to help someone pick a lock though and you aren’t likely to get advantage. But if a secondary character says, ‘I know lots about locks’ and they have proficiency in thieves tools, I might allow advantage with the justification that he’s giving advice. Maybe they make a simple investigation check to study the lock.
The point is it has to make sense.
Saying, “the familiar stands on my head and does a funny dance” will not garner you advantage. (Only the bard can do that).
I'd add to this that it is often better to simply ask, "What are you doing to help?". Because sometimes what will meaningfully contribute isn't covered by a specific skill.
It's an interesting topic and thank you for raising it.
I thought it might be helpful for the text of the rule to be in the thread:
"Sometimes two or more characters team up to attempt a task. The character who's leading the effort--or the one with the highest ability modifier--can make an ability check with advantage, reflecting the help provided by the other characters. In combat, this requires the Help action. A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves' tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can't help another character in that task. Moreover, a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as threading a needle, are no easier with help."
So the limits are:
1) helper must have been able to attempt it alone
2) can only help if working together would actually be productive (must be clearly easier with help).
It seems the second limit is the tricky one. Is it clearly easier to persuade someone when two people are trying rather than one? That depends - did the second person roll a 1 on their persuasion, indicating they probably did worse much worse than the average persuasion check?
IMO 1 is a bad rule, though in the right spirit. I don't need someone to be able to enchant weapons to help me make a magic sword, I just need them to be able to help me make the process more efficient and make up for my shortcomings, like my gnome's lowish (12) strength and size (4ft), and lack of swordsmithing experience. He can do the alchemy of preparing the additives to the steel, prepare the tools to carve the runes into the still hot fuller and do the carving, and channel the magical energies, but it is going to take a lot longer and be harder if he has to rely on magic to shape the physical weapon, and so a sword smith, and a strong person with good timing and ability to follow directions (smith's apprentice or another party member) can reasonably help him, as can anyone who can grind herbs and other ingredients, following detailed instructions, boils liquids, etc, someone who knows their dyes, etc. The more I can delegate to competent people within their competency, the easier my task is.
Of course, in this example, we're using a houserule that puts ability checks into the magic item crafting process.
Also, we like to use a variant where whenever you help someone with a task, you both roll a d20, and apply the "point" person's modifiers to the higher roll. Just a fun houserule that makes the helper feel more involved.
