D&D 5E Ramifications of allowing "Help" defensive option

[Sword of Spirit]

One interesting about the Help option is that it doesn't provide a defensive use to grant Disadvantage to attacks against an ally. The omission seems intentional, given that Help is similar to the 3e Aid Another which did include a defensive option.

The most obvious mechanical implementation would be that you choose a foe within 5' of you, and they get Disadvantage on the first attack they make against the ally you specify before the start of your next turn.

Why do you think this was left out, or to put it another way, what negative effects might such an option have had on the game? And for the second question, do you agree that this would actually happen or a be a problem, or do you think it would be harmless to allow it in?

 

[Asisreo]

One interesting about the Help option is that it doesn't provide a defensive use to grant Disadvantage to attacks against an ally. The omission seems intentional, given that Help is similar to the 3e Aid Another which did include a defensive option.

The most obvious mechanical implementation would be that you choose a foe within 5' of you, and they get Disadvantage on the first attack they make against the ally you specify before the start of your next turn.

Why do you think this was left out, or to put it another way, what negative effects might such an option have had on the game? And for the second question, do you agree that this would actually happen or a be a problem, or do you think it would be harmless to allow it in?

They left it out and put it as a Paladin's and Fighter's fighting style. It's also a bit more efficient since it only requires a reaction while the proposed alternative would take an action.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It's possible, but I'm unconvinced that they left it out due to the fighting style. There's no reason you couldn't have a worse defensive help that uses an action, and the better version that uses a reaction.

If anything, I would expect they left it out because it's a bit niche. The fighting style always has a chance to stop an attack (if it triggers, an attack has been made).

However, the action version could be foiled in many different ways. The creature might not attack (disengage and reposition). It could use an attack that doesn't require an attack roll (fireball). It might move out of range and make an attack. There's significant risk of a wasted action.

If I had to guess it would be along those lines.

 

[Shiroiken]

During the playtest they had a Hinder action that was the opposite of the Help action. It did the exact same thing you mentioned, except it didn't require a specific target. The reason I think it was removed was due to single powerful monsters, who could be given disadvantage to every attack while still having the party's primary damage dealers attack. In addition, you might have party members that cannot damage the target (or at least effectively), which they might have felt was a cheesy way to get around various resistance/immunity. My suggestion was to require a Cha check against Wis to succeed (which would be Deception vs. Insight now), but obviously that was ignored.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Huh, I didn't realize it wasn't a thing. I allow it. The 'Help' (or Hinder) action gets used so infrequently* that I see no reason not to allow it.

*Not counting Familiars.

 

[GMMichael]

The reason I think it was removed was due to single powerful monsters, who could be given disadvantage to every attack while still having the party's primary damage dealers attack.

Well, not every attack. Because what happens when you're trying to defend an ally, and the Single Powerful Monster attacks you instead? Odds are that you're a little squishy if you're not the Primary Damage Dealer, and not likely to stick around long when the SPM realizes you're defending someone (anyone?) other than yourself.

Realistically speaking, what does it mean to Hinder an opponent's attack? It means to (counter)attack that opponent or put yourself in harm's way. Well, there are already rules for attacking. Putting yourself in harm's way is tantamount to grappling or making an opportunity attack, and those options don't jibe well with the design goal of streamlining rules.

A Hinder action, like a Help (to attack) action, is a way to simulate the difficulty of being outnumbered in combat. It makes sense as long as it's not doubling up on other outnumbered-rules, like flanking, opportunity attacks, 8-creatures-around-a-medium-opponent, sneak attacks, etc.

 

[Shiroiken]

Well, not every attack. Because what happens when you're trying to defend an ally, and the Single Powerful Monster attacks you instead? Odds are that you're a little squishy if you're not the Primary Damage Dealer, and not likely to stick around long when the SPM realizes you're defending someone (anyone?) other than yourself.

The playtest version didn't require a specified target, probably because the original thought was giving up an action to grant disadvantage is a loss on action economy. However as you pointed out, if the numbers favor the other side this doesn't work. Conversely, some DMs might have been using mobs of creatures using the Hinder action to obliterate the PCs (which would also trend poorly in the playtest results).

For a new rule, I think requiring it to target specific could work. This gives the opportunity for the attacker to have a choice on someone to attack without disadvantage, unless they're outnumbered at least 2:1.

 

[77IM]

An alternative could be allowing a character to take the Dodge action but confer its benefits to an adjacent ally. E.g., you are jumping in front of your ally to interfere with incoming attacks.

Another alternative would be that you can Hinder a creature to impose disadvantage on all their attacks except attacks against you (since you're all up in their face). This solves the problem of having one member of the party spend every round Hindering the solo monster, and also recalls 4E's marking mechanic somewhat.