The help action is not broken, but Working together is

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Honestly, I let players help and grant advantage on all sorts of things, and often enough they still fail or don't get as much success, like with persuasion, that they were hoping for. I have yet to see an instance where helping or working together is broken, but that is my experience I suppose. Also, out of my six players at present, only one has been a power-gamer/min-maxer who started a character with a +7 to a check or attack; others were high, mind you, but only one was maxed out at Level 1. So, part of this is also the people you play with and how you run your game IMO.

 

[5ekyu]

Honestly, I let players help and grant advantage on all sorts of things, and often enough they still fail or don't get as much success, like with persuasion, that they were hoping for. I have yet to see an instance where helping or working together is broken, but that is my experience I suppose. Also, out of my six players at present, only one has been a power-gamer/min-maxer who started a character with a +7 to a check or attack; others were high, mind you, but only one was maxed out at Level 1. So, part of this is also the people you play with and how you run your game IMO.

i tend to see 16s in primary stats at level 1 - which with prof bonus means typically +5. There may be a fighting style that grants +2 to archery for a +2 more for that one bit - but thats class feature in lieu of something else. Of course rogues have expertise for two skills.

that said - in "some cases" you can get guidance to help with ability checks and you can get working together and you can have inspire dice etc etc etc... so it really comes down to the party build and focus - if the party *wants to build for it* they can get there.

of course, we use standard point buy and if one uses rolls for stats its entirely possible these numbers get skewed.

I have not experienced the problems the OP has put forth in actual play - but then again - i actually do not consider it a "problem" at all. I use the DMG "if proficient auto-succeed on an Easy DC unless disadvantages" rule because i see that as a reasonable event, not some sign that something is broken.

I mean, while a few posters might see "DC 10 easy and the party can make that" as some game breaking flaw - i think we might have seen more folks weigh in on threeads complaining that the idea of a small chance of failure on "easy" checks for proficient characters (you and my games maybe 510% if they had to roll) is seen as a problem.

Can't please everybody - which is why aiming at pleasing most folks is such a good strategy.

 

[dave2008]

Better to simply ask what they do, and decide if what they describe makes sense, regardless of any skills that do or don’t get brought up.

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!

 

[Ratskinner]

I think the DM needs to be a bit more particular about who can give advantage to whom and under what circumstances. At our table, we have an unspoken rule that to Help another requires some expertise on the part of the helper. i.e. If you aren't proficient in Survival, then you can't help the ranger track. We're pretty free about the attacking part, but we haven't noticed it being a problem. Then again, we often see the badguys use the same tactic. The best use of a goblin warrior is to Help the Ogre's attack, so to speak.

 

[CleverNickName]

Gaining advantage just because is, for want of a better word, lame.

So, no. No inspiration, no "lemme help" free advantage, and D&D is a better game, since now you actually have to play it.

I think this is a very succinct summary of both the problem you are experiencing, and the best solution for your table.

I haven't experienced these problems you have described, but I spotted the potential for abuse right away when I read the rules. I figured the best way to prevent that abuse was to require my players to roleplay those situations first, so that the default assumption will never be "I am always helping the rogue, so the rogue always has Advantage." That's no fun for anybody, especially the players.

Also, I only use passive checks for ordinary, everyday things, like browsing the shelves at a market or noticing a dropped coin. Secret doors and boobytraps are neither "ordinary" nor "everyday" in my game world, so they require active checks.

 

[Mort]

Like many people here, I don't seem to be having the problems you are having. But that's likely because I tend to use modules for inspiration and not run them as is.

That is why we've ditched Inspiration, for instance. If you gain advantage from first casting a spell, or tactically positioning yourself, or from teamwork, that's D&D as I recognise it.

Gaining advantage just because is, for want of a better word, lame.

So, no. No inspiration, no "lemme help" free advantage, and D&D is a better game, since now you actually have to play it.

Inspiration isn't supposed to be "just because" it's supposed to be because a player played the character particularly on point - such as playing a flaw to perfection - even if detrimental.

I've found giving out inspiration more freely has been great for my game.

If you want to play the social pillar on easy mode you bring a bard who doesn't waste his Inspire dice in combat (where it is balanced) and instead spend it out of combat (where it is gamewrecking).

If you want to play the explore pillar on easy mode you bring a Ranger whose class features says "you can't get lost". A Rogues whose Reliable talent basically wipes traps off the table since no trap ever has a higher DC than what he achieves on automatic.

Why even have rules if there's no challenge? Why not then admit you're having a round of storytelling?

Tl;dr: instead of faffing about with all these rules, how about throwing it all out and instead say roll a d20:
1: real failure (of the old-school kind)
2-9: you succeed "but..."
10-19: basic success
20: critical success

Unless you do what I tell you to, and dismantle all the easiest paths to bonuses, that is what D&D amounts to nowadays.

Now get off my lawn.

Or, you know, as the DM you could set challenges appropriate to what your players bring to the table without having to hamstring them.

Actually, at the end of the day, that's exactly what your doing, so that's great. The problem is you're complaining anyone doing it differently from you is doing it wrong. That's not only not ok - it's not the least bit accurate.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think most people miss my point.

They discuss "is it realistic to hand out advantage".

I am pointing out that when a module says you need to make a DC 10 Perception test to find the whatever, that means any Commoner will passively find it, every single time.

In other words, it is not hidden at all.

I increase the DC of all passive checks by 2. This effectively brings the statistics of passive checks in line with casters spell save DCs, without having to tell players that I’m house ruling passive checks to 8 + Attribute + Proficiency. Also, most checks that I handle passively are pretty difficult to work together on. “I’m looking for it too” is not working together in my evaluation, it’s multiple characters working independently. They can each make the check, but no advantage unless you can describe an action that would improve the other person’s chances of success, rather than just giving you a chance to succeed at the same task.

 

[CapnZapp]

Like many people here, I don't seem to be having the problems you are having. But that's likely because I tend to use modules for inspiration and not run them as is.

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

The problem is you're complaining anyone doing it differently from you is doing it wrong.

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

 

[Henry]

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

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.