Roll it back just one second!

[iserith]

Precisely. And in my judgment, “double-talking to throw the guard off-balance” would absolutely not be productive to the goal of convincing the guard of Bob’s story. Ergo, it would not grant Bob Advantage. However, the outcome of Tom’s action is uncertain- does his double-talk throw the guard off-balance or not? But because Bob just gave an unconvincing story with his roll of 4, the guard would likely be suspicious of Tom’s doublespeak, hence the Disadvantage.

I don't have any strong feelings either way on the ruling - examples are dangerous territory.

 

[Sunseeker]

This. Don't sit around, happy as a clam, until you see someone roll low. And THEN say, "oh wait, I was gonna help."

You can cut that problem out by asking for fewer rolls, though...

I understand wanting to "conserve resources" but this is too often a way to game the system. Bob rolls low and then suddenly Joe wants to jump in and change the outcome. Unless there is a feature that allows them to interrupt the flow of a turn (ie: When another player rolls but before damage you may...) this is really just an excuse to game the system for an advantage at the expense of the flow of the table.

It is one thing I think 5E did right by cutting down on "interruption" features.

 

[ccs]

Case 1)
I've seen players and DMs alike resolve actions simultaneously when, by RAW, it should all be sequential. For example, a player with Extra Attack will announce, "I'm going to take a couple swings at the Ogre," then roll 2d20. It's expedient, I get that, especially for a big bag of meat like an ogre. Let's say both attacks hit, but you only needed one hit to KO him. Do you let the warrior move and keep the second attack roll to apply against another target? Ask for a reroll? Tell him the second attack was apparently spent hacking the monster into red mist?

At my tables, I enforce sequential resolution so it's not an issue. However, I'm a player at a table where some of the players do simultaneous attacks. The DM rides with it, and while it's not a deal breaker for me, it always bugs me.

When I'm the DM you state how many attacks you're putting on an enemy before you roll any dice.
If there's multiple targets & you don't specify? Then they all go against one target & I'll tell you how dead it is/isn't once all the #s are tallied.

Case 2)
DM: "Okay Bob, you said you wanted to sneak ahead and scout. Give me a Dexterity stealth roll."
Bob: Rolls, "15 total."
Jon: "Oh, I wanted to use Guidance before he snuck off"

Too bad. You'll eventually learn to communicate & coordinate your plans better.

or
DM: "A guard turns the corner unexpectedly and looks at the two of you sternly. You and he all know you're not supposed to be in this part of the palace."
Bob: "I make up a story about getting lost."
DM: "Roll Charisma deception."
Bob: Rolls, "5 total"
Tom: "Hold on, I'm double-talking the guard to throw him off balance, granting advantage to Bob's roll."

Wouldn't happen. I'll know what each of you intends BEFORE I ask for a check.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I'm generally very lenient about this sort of thing. Our group are gamers, but we're currently running like 6 different systems. Sometimes the minutia and options get a bit muddled. We also tend to play online where it can sometimes be difficult to interject in a timely fashion. Anything that keeps play moving, allows everyone to participate, and preserves the rule of cool is win-win-win in my book.

However, once I narrate the outcome, that's it. No backtracking. No rewriting of history. It's on to the next challenge.

 

[Nevvur]

Precisely. And in my judgment, “double-talking to throw the guard off-balance” would absolutely not be productive to the goal of convincing the guard of Bob’s story. Ergo, it would not grant Bob Advantage. However, the outcome of Tom’s action is uncertain- does his double-talk throw the guard off-balance or not? But because Bob just gave an unconvincing story with his roll of 4, the guard would likely be suspicious of Tom’s doublespeak, hence the Disadvantage.

Nearly the exact situation I originally outlined appears on p.245 of the DMG. Briefly, the DM is supposed to determine whether the aid described is actually helpful, and apply advantage or disadvantage as appropriate. So just as you said.

It's also kind of beside the point, but I'll acknowledge the unintentional red herring. Tom shouldn't have declared he's taking advantage, but then I didn't mean to precipitate a discussion specifically on player and DM agency relating to the help action or working together rule.

I was simply illustrating the premise of a player reacting belatedly to a story being invented moment to moment. It's a question of reconciling the dissonance between PCs existing in adventuring scenarios and players sitting around a table pretending to be those people. I'm curious to examine the still unformed narrative when the die has been cast and the DM is piecing the elements together, when from out of the darkness a player hearkens, "Wait a sec!" in the hope of we haz moar dice!!1

 

[thorgrit]

For case 1, I'd make sure anyone rolling multiple attacks specifies which color dice is which ahead of time. I encourage damage to be rolled at the same time, preferably with the damage dice matching the color of the d20. So I'd resolve if the declared first attack finished off the monster, he could apply the second (or later) attacks against a different target.

For case 2, sounds like it'd be best served by getting all player input on things before plans are set and dice rolled. Go around the table and ask each player's intent. If Jon or Tom want to help Bob, they have explicit opportunities to let that be known first. (Minor pet peeve of mine; I was in a game for a while where the DM would instantly resolve any player action he heard, so it was a race to shout first/loudest if a player wanted to get the chance to do anything. I'm a quiet guy with a bit of social anxiety, and could never shout loud or quick enough, so I wasn't allowed to participate in RP or exploration, only combat because initiative forced it.)

 

[Horwath]

1. He can have the attack against new target. Unless he wants to use 2nd attack to Coup de grace fallen foe.

2. Guidance? No. Stealth is an prolonged activity. I can call stealth check every round or every minute. depending on situation. I would let guidance slip in on disabling traps or similar if response is fast and not after failure is obvious.

3. Don't know. depends.

 

[FrogReaver]

DM style questions. Just looking for insights and justifications on different approaches.

Case 1)

I've seen players and DMs alike resolve actions simultaneously when, by RAW, it should all be sequential. For example, a player with Extra Attack will announce, "I'm going to take a couple swings at the Ogre," then roll 2d20. It's expedient, I get that, especially for a big bag of meat like an ogre. Let's say both attacks hit, but you only needed one hit to KO him. Do you let the warrior move and keep the second attack roll to apply against another target? Ask for a reroll? Tell him the second attack was apparently spent hacking the monster into red mist?

At my tables, I enforce sequential resolution so it's not an issue. However, I'm a player at a table where some of the players do simultaneous attacks. The DM rides with it, and while it's not a deal breaker for me, it always bugs me.

Case 2)

DM: "Okay Bob, you said you wanted to sneak ahead and scout. Give me a Dexterity stealth roll."
Bob: Rolls, "15 total."
Jon: "Oh, I wanted to use Guidance before he snuck off"

or

DM: "A guard turns the corner unexpectedly and looks at the two of you sternly. You and he all know you're not supposed to be in this part of the palace."
Bob: "I make up a story about getting lost."
DM: "Roll Charisma deception."
Bob: Rolls, "5 total"
Tom: "Hold on, I'm double-talking the guard to throw him off balance, granting advantage to Bob's roll."

In both cases, we're looking at the rapid mechanical resolution of an action before the other player got a chance to announce he wanted to render aid.

Do you let Jon cast guidance? Do you let Bob gain advantange from Tom's help? If so, does Bob roll an additional d20, or does he roll a new pair of d20s? Do you first look at the result of the current die roll to see if a bonus or advantage would even make a difference? Or perhaps you expect your players to be on their toes for such opportunities, and it's too late once the die is cast and the total declared?

I prefer attacks to be rolled sequentially as there can be reactions and such that change things before the 2nd attack. However, it's not that big of a deal either way. I would let the 2nd attack apply to another target if the ogre was already dead. I like the idea I read in this thread about having attacks against other enemies not using the dice result you rolled for the ogre but instead asking for a reroll on the new target.

When possible I try to hold off on immediate resolution and establish what the other players in the scene are doing before I ask for checks. In that case I would not typically allow retroactive help actions. In cases where a single player describes an action and then I immediately ask for a check I will allow help even a bit retroactively. However, if I've already made it through the whole narration of a failure and am moving on to frame the next events then it's probably to late to ask to help.

 

[5ekyu]

A couple points from my perspective...

First as GM, unless you are in initiative turn checklist, DO NOT just get one character's reaction and then go to dice. Find out what others are doing. Especially if it is potentially able to interact with scene.

The multi-swing thing is one i likely am ok with in favor of speed and practicality. Character is comptent and all this does is give what he would have gotten. If its a question worth worrying about then roll to see which was first.

As for team actions for advantage, again see what everyone is doing before rolling. Two guys trying to flim flam can help but also another readying weapons might hurt and raise the DC.

 

[Nevvur]

I don't have any strong feelings either way on the ruling - examples are dangerous territory.

Advice I could've used as I gathered my thoughts on the matter.