D&D 5E HELP action automatic? Clarification and thoughts...

[abirdcall]

They're not technically in conflict: The Working Together option is in the skills section, whereas the combat Help action is a different option, in the combat section. Hence why Jeremy clarified that you don't need to be able to attack yourself in order to take the help action to aid another's attack.

I'd personally probably houserule it the same as you though.

You're right, but also, it specifically says that the combat Help action is the same as 'working together' for skills. The very next sentence after the bit about the combat Help is about needing to be able to do it.

" 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."

If the intent was to have combat Help different it should have been separate. It specifies combat Help, and then uses 'help' in the next sentence. Talk about confusing!

But yes, I concede that once Jeremy has clarified it then that is the rule. 5e is mostly built on natural language so it's strange that here we have a rule that is about technicalities; "Help" is different than "help".

 

[Charlaquin]

5e is mostly built on natural language so it's strange that here we have a rule that is about technicalities; "Help" is different than "help".

5e pretends to be built on natural language, but there’s a lot of technical jargon hidden in there. It’s WotC, they’re too technically-inclined to actually design a game in natural language. But they have been getting better over the years at making their technical language sound natural on a casual reading.

 

[5ekyu]

You're right, but also, it specifically says that the combat Help action is the same as 'working together' for skills. The very next sentence after the bit about the combat Help is about needing to be able to do it.

" 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."

If the intent was to have combat Help different it should have been separate. It specifies combat Help, and then uses 'help' in the next sentence. Talk about confusing!

But yes, I concede that once Jeremy has clarified it then that is the rule. 5e is mostly built on natural language so it's strange that here we have a rule that is about technicalities; "Help" is different than "help".

Been used to capitalizing being a reference to in-game term and regular case being reference to normal language for decades. Its a common format choice across many systems for just this sort of example.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[acorn_stasis]

Some great info thank you; this forum is full of really helpful and knowledgeable people which is nice.

From what I understand then, the combat action Help is a bit more "automatic" say (loosely)? So if I can expend the action on Help (capital) then I could reasonably expect it to grant advantage?

I specifically am thinking of the warlock's invisible flying imp (enhanced familiar) for this kind of advantage granting combat support role. I'd hate to build a character including a feature based upon a flawed understanding of the way the rules play out in practise.

 

[abirdcall]

I specifically am thinking of the warlock's invisible flying imp (enhanced familiar) for this kind of advantage granting combat support role. I'd hate to build a character including a feature based upon a flawed understanding of the way the rules play out in practise.

Yes, that sounds like a great plan.

Note that even though it isn't an actual rule, it would be reasonable to me to count Helping an attack as an attack for the purposes of the Imp losing Invisibility. The Imp is acting aggressively on another creature afterall.

 

[Charlaquin]

Some great info thank you; this forum is full of really helpful and knowledgeable people which is nice.

From what I understand then, the combat action Help is a bit more "automatic" say (loosely)? So if I can expend the action on Help (capital) then I could reasonably expect it to grant advantage?

I specifically am thinking of the warlock's invisible flying imp (enhanced familiar) for this kind of advantage granting combat support role. I'd hate to build a character including a feature based upon a flawed understanding of the way the rules play out in practise.

The capital-H Help Action is described as, “You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally’s attack more effective.“ so you have to be able to do that in order to take the action. My rule of thumb is, if the player can describe what the familiar is doing and how that action is helpful to the attacking character, then it works. If not, they should pick a different action. It’s easy to imagine how a visible Familiar might provide a distraction, but an invisible one? It would probably have to use sound or touch to distract the enemy, since it can’t use sight, and that might break the invisibility.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Some great info thank you; this forum is full of really helpful and knowledgeable people which is nice.

From what I understand then, the combat action Help is a bit more "automatic" say (loosely)? So if I can expend the action on Help (capital) then I could reasonably expect it to grant advantage?

I specifically am thinking of the warlock's invisible flying imp (enhanced familiar) for this kind of advantage granting combat support role. I'd hate to build a character including a feature based upon a flawed understanding of the way the rules play out in practise.

Technically maybe.
However I would really advise checking with your DM before building a character based around a single nebulous trick like that.

I for one might rule that taking the help action to aid an attack is close enough to an attack to break invisibility for example.

 

[Satyrn]

I specifically am thinking of the warlock's invisible flying imp (enhanced familiar) for this kind of advantage granting combat support role. I'd hate to build a character including a feature based upon a flawed understanding of the way the rules play out in practise.

You'll need to verify with your DM, not us.


No matter what sort of consensus you might find here, any given DM might rule otherwise. And it'd be fine if he did, too. For example, I might let it work early in a fight, but then when your enemies realize that this thing flying around harrassing them, distracting them, isn't a threat and just start ignoring it, maming its help useless.

I might rule some other way in any given round of any given fight.

 

[acorn_stasis]

ha ha - yeah I am not thinking of a one trick pony. More like seeing some potential utility. Even a couple of advantage rolls could be worth some nice damage.

 

[CubicsRube]

Theoretically yes, but it would be pretty poor DM etiquette to say “Ok, you try to help but it does nothing” instead of “In this situation your help won’t be of any use, would you like to take a different action instead?”

I would not play with a "gotcha" gm that told me that i wasted an action and it did nothing without any discussion beforehand. Gms are there to interpret the rules or give rulings. Players aren't there to be psychics to the GMs mind.