So, Seeking Help on Help in 5e

[5ekyu]

RAW Help action gives advantage on ability check or attack blah blah blah.

RAW GM can change or overrule anything ad hoc whatever blah blah blah.

Case

Dr. Arcane Wizard goes to research mystery macguffin sigil... Int +5 Lore proficiency +4. Picks up d20 and Smelly of the Beastly Hygiene Barbie says "Me help pointy hat" and so a second D20 is pulled out.

Cut to any number of rogue vs complex lock, bard smooth talking locals into favors or even Smelly forces door and halfling pipes up "i jump in with a spot of the old heave ho."

It feels off, especially if one expands out to other genres like space or tech using DMG options etc.

So i have several different thoughts on a systematic way to make reasonable choices yield reasonable results in this regard

For Help action with tasks for ability checks...not combat.

1 When joint tasks are performed thrpugh Help and advantage, the LOWEST modifer of any involved is used, but with advantage. Bad help can hurt more than help.

Or alternative...

2 Use the best/highest modifier but advantage is only gained if both are proficient or neither are proficient in the relevant check.

Anybody had similar issues come up in game?
Anybody tried these or similar tweaks?
Any specific RAW beyond the basic that is key?
Other ideas?
Any other genre games with similar tweaks for your game?
Etc.

Thanks.

EDIT to add clarity...

When i refer to proficiency above, i am not necessarily talking about the same proficiency, just relevant proficiencies. A halfling might help with a door shove by using carpentry prof to weaken the hinges or a keep support. or as a nod to the firs responder, the barbarian might use some nature skill thingy relevant to spirits maybe, though maybe lore is a pretty broad catch all.


Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Nevvur]

Hasn't come up enough in my games to justify a house rule, and that's one of my biggest prerequisites to consider instating one. I agree it feels odd for certain characters to lend help in certain tasks, but as long as it's infrequent, I can chalk it up to heroic luck, fate, divine providence, etc...

The dumb barbarian helps with an arcana check? He recalls a story told by the village elders that relates to the matter at hand, inspiring the nerd mage who now makes the check with advantage.
The uncouth rogue helps with a bard's persuasion check? He's making the bard look more agreeable simply by being himself.
And so on...

It would be only after three or so unlikely help actions in a relatively short period of time that I start to worry the mechanics are intruding on the narrative. At that point, I think it would be better to approach the unlikely helper's player about maintaining a sensible narrative. If the player recognizes a given ability (skill) check is a good candidate for the help action, he can suggest an appropriate PC other than his own do so. It's not like he's going to get extra points for running the PC who does it*.

If you really want to deal with this 'problem' via house rule, I would prefer option 1 (use the lowest modifier but with advantage)

edit: a DM might also consider requiring the player to explain how the helper is helping. Lack of a reasonable explanation is justification for denying the help action.




* - Really, this sort of thinking applies to so much more than just taking the help action. For example, the player of a dumb barbarian can still "solve the puzzle" and share the answer with the table, with the narrative handling it as the smart wizard coming up with the solution.

 

[5ekyu]

Hasn't come up enough in my games to justify a house rule, and that's one of my biggest prerequisites to consider instating one. I agree it feels odd for certain characters to lend help in certain tasks, but as long as it's infrequent, I can chalk it up to heroic luck, fate, divine providence, etc...

The dumb barbarian helps with an arcana check? He recalls a story told by the village elders that relates to the matter at hand, inspiring the nerd mage who now makes the check with advantage.
The uncouth rogue helps with a bard's persuasion check? He's making the bard look more agreeable simply by being himself.
And so on...

It would be only after three or so unlikely help actions in a relatively short period of time that I start to worry the mechanics are intruding on the narrative. At that point, I think it would be better to approach the unlikely helper's player about maintaining a sensible narrative. If the player recognizes a given ability (skill) check is a good candidate for the help action, he can suggest an appropriate PC other than his own do so. It's not like he's going to get extra points for running the PC who does it*.

If you really want to deal with this 'problem' via house rule, I would prefer option 1 (use the lowest modifier but with advantage)

edit: a DM might also consider requiring the player to explain how the helper is helping. Lack of a reasonable explanation is justification for denying the help action.




* - Really, this sort of thinking applies to so much more than just taking the help action. For example, the player of a dumb barbarian can still "solve the puzzle" and share the answer with the table, with the narrative handling it as the smart wizard coming up with the solution.

Thanks and you are absolutely right, narrative fiat can hide the problem just fine and even if we add in the separation of "who does the deed" from "the player who does the deed" so to speak, much like a barbarian can swing his axe, roll dice, do damage with the target dropping and we can use narrative fiat to say "the halfling actually felled them with its unarmed punch" as a result of the advantage/help thing. There is nothing stopping narrative fiat from being applied to whatever circumstance the Gm decides.

Also, again spot on, the issue can be addressed Gm to player by asking them to change their choices made going forward or adjust them etc. Asking the player to limit his choices to options allowed that make sense is definitely one way to resolve RAW system sense hiccups, to be sure. i can't think of any system which would not be better if players just chose to not do things it allows that are off. Would certainly cut down on errata. Sage Advice would have days off, time to shower.



But as some prefer more systemic approaches, thanks for the call back that you prefer option #1.

 

[epithet]

...
...a DM might also consider requiring the player to explain how the helper is helping. Lack of a reasonable explanation is justification for denying the help action.
...

Best answer, I think.

 

[transtemporal]

My house rule is that you must have a non-zero skill/ability modifier to use the aid other action. This reflects the fact a character may have some natural ability with a skill, even if he/she hasn't been trained in it.

 

[Arilyn]

Some help actions should give a bonus rather than advantage. Impossible tasks can become possible with assistance, and gaining advantage won't help in these situations. Str checks are an obvious example.

 

[Charlaquin]

This issue is resolved by a confluence of a couple of unspoken assumptions in D&D.

1. Dice should only be rolled when there is a reasonable chance of success, a reasonable chance of failure, and consequences for failure. This is why you don't ask players for Dexterity checks to tie their shoes, or Strength checks to lift their own weapons. The flipside of that is, when a player asks if they can break down the magically sealed mithral door with a Strength check, you tell them no. Doesn't matter what number you roll on your d20, it's not possible to do.

2. Some checks require a relevant Proficiency and/or equipment to even attempt. You can't pick a lock if you don't have a set of Thieves' Tools and know how to use them. You can't forge a sword if you don't have Smith's Tools and know how to use them. Likewise, you shouldn't be able to research the magical macguffin if you can't read the language the books about it are written in and know what the words mean. It would be well within the DM's purview to require Arcana Proficiency in order to even attempt a roll to research high-level arcane magic, or to require a battering ram to attempt to break down a barred door.

3. A character must be capable of attempting an action themselves to be able to Help another character do it. This isn't explicitly stated, but it should be obvious. You can't help the sentry keep watch if you're blind, and likewise you shouldn't be able to help the woodsman track his quarry if you don't know how to track. Players using the Help action should need to meet the same requirements the character performing the action needs to meet to attempt the check in the first place.

4. Some things are one-person jobs. The lock only has room for one set of thieves' tools in it, and I'm sorry, but rubbing the rogue's shoulders and whispering words of encouragement isn't going to improve his chances success. If anything, it might be distracting.

 

[iserith]

The Help action is actually a combat thing.

"Working Together" is what you want to look at, Basic Rules, page 59. Notably, the PC with the highest modifier makes the check and has advantage from the other PC's efforts. However, the PC who is aiding must have been able to do the same task on his or her own. It must also actually be productive to have help or else no advantage.You can use this as the basis for your rulings during play.

 

[5ekyu]

The Help action is actually a combat thing.

"Working Together" is what you want to look at, Basic Rules, page 59. Notably, the PC with the highest modifier makes the check and has advantage from the other PC's efforts. However, the PC who is aiding must have been able to do the same task on his or her own. It must also actually be productive to have help or else no advantage.You can use this as the basis for your rulings during play.

Thanks Iserith. Got it. If its a task impossible for the helper, roll of 20 fails or requirement not mer, then no help.

Definitely covers some cases.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Kobold Stew]

The Help action is actually a combat thing.

"Working Together" is what you want to look at, Basic Rules, page 59. Notably, the PC with the highest modifier makes the check and has advantage from the other PC's efforts. However, the PC who is aiding must have been able to do the same task on his or her own. It must also actually be productive to have help or else no advantage.You can use this as the basis for your rulings during play.

This.

My reading of this has been that the Helper must have proficiency in the relevant skill or tool to help. That's stricter than RAW, but it's unambiguous.

As a player, I only offer to help if I have the relevant skill (that's self-imposed, but I don't feel it's an obstacle).
As DM, I ask if the Helper has the skill; if they don't I expect a pretty good story out of them to explain why or how their character can help.