The help action is not broken, but Working together is

[Satyrn]

Same here. It's the simplest and most reasonable solution, IMO. It makes common sense, that the only way to help or advise someone else is if you know a bit about the skill yourself. How would the lumbering Fighter in full plate with a negative DEX, who's never picked a lock before, be able to help the trained Rogue pick a lock better?

He can hold the rogue's beer.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Same here. It's the simplest and most reasonable solution, IMO. It makes common sense, that the only way to help or advise someone else is if you know a bit about the skill yourself. How would the lumbering Fighter in full plate with a negative DEX, who's never picked a lock before, be able to help the trained Rogue pick a lock better?

By putting his hand where the rogue tells him, so the fighter can soak up that trap damage instead of the rogue. Fighters, good for setting off traps

 

[Retreater]

My take:

Much of 5E is mechanically unsound and requires substantial DM finesse to make it work, which is fine in the tradition of AD&D. However, I think players that learned the game in 3.x and 4E like a more codified game and expect rules for most situations. The same with newer tabletop players who come from board games.

By default, the various groups and players I run assume they are always offering assistance by working together. "We're both looking for traps," "we're both talking to the town guard" so they assume advantage in every situation. Frequently they drop dice before I even ask them to make a check. Sure, I call them out on it, but I think this is the default for the various groups I've played in/DMed for.

 

[dave2008]

My take:

Much of 5E is mechanically unsound and requires substantial DM finesse to make it work, which is fine in the tradition of AD&D.

Maybe I've been playing to long, but I don't have this issue. I played 4e for years before 5e (and 1e since the 80's) and I don't feel 5e needs any more rules finesse than 4e did. But maybe I have a habit of just ignoring the things I don't like and insert my own solution regardless of edition!

By default, the various groups and players I run assume they are always offering assistance by working together. "We're both looking for traps," "we're both talking to the town guard" so they assume advantage in every situation. Frequently they drop dice before I even ask them to make a check. Sure, I call them out on it, but I think this is the default for the various groups I've played in/DMed for.

If this continues to occur, then you should address it and preferably in a session 0 at the beginning. I explain to my groups that I tell them when they get a check or advantage, it is there job to tell me what and how they are doing.

 

[Aiden_Keller_]

How is it broken if it is only allowed in Combat?
I would also rule that if the familiar is HELPING YOU it would need to be close to either you (to help with an attack) or to the enemy (to distract them)...

 

[Charlaquin]

I haven’t had any trouble with Working Together being abused, though I have more stringent requirements for what constitutes Working Together than I think a lot of DMs have. As per the usual task resolution system, to make a check in the first place, a player needs to describe an action in terms of what their character is trying to accomplish and how, and that action needs a chance of success, chance of failure, and a cost or consequence for failure. In order to grant them advantage on that check, another player needs to describe an action in terms of what their character is doing to help (the goal is already established as “make it easier for the acting character to achieve their goal” by the nature of Working Together.) But the thing is, the action needs to be something that could reasonably help the other character achieve their goal, and isn’t simply doing the same action independently. “We’re both looking for traps” not only doesn’t establish an actual approach, but is also just two characters each doing whatever thing they’re doing to try to find traps, not one character looking for traps and another character helping them do it. When the Rogue is trying to unlock the door using her thieves’ tools, there’s really nothing anyone else can do that would help her with that (and no, words of encouragement and/or shoulder massages don’t count.) Lifting something heavy? Sure, that’s something you can work together on. Trying to recall a piece of information? Sorry, you can each try to remember it, but you can’t really do much to make it easier for one person to remember it.

 

[5ekyu]

Same here. It's the simplest and most reasonable solution, IMO. It makes common sense, that the only way to help or advise someone else is if you know a bit about the skill yourself. How would the lumbering Fighter in full plate with a negative DEX, who's never picked a lock before, be able to help the trained Rogue pick a lock better?

Well, picking a lock could be a one man job period. No guarantee teo would help if its small with space, but if say it's a safe, could be different story.

But, I dont require flat out proficiency for working together. I judge it task by task. Many tasks (construction of barricades or houses) are served very well by one guy who knows what they are doing and helpers who do what they are told. Simply put not every part of every task requires special training.

So, to me, Carter blanche banning non-proficient help from helping is as flawed as allowing all help (which is not the rule but is often portrayed as if it is) and more flawed than case by case (the rule), so that's why I go the other way.

 

[dave2008]

Trying to recall a piece of information? Sorry, you can each try to remember it, but you can’t really do much to make it easier for one person to remember it.

I disagree with that one. It often helps me to remember something when I discuss the subject with someone else. Depending on the situation I might grant advantage, but as previously noted i generally require both parties to be proficient in the skill to award advantage to one check.

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree with that one. It often helps me to remember something when I discuss the subject with someone else. Depending on the situation I might grant advantage, but as previously noted i generally require both parties to be proficient in the skill to award advantage to one check.

That’s fair. Honestly, I handle information recall with passive checks anyway, so it doesn’t tend to come up.

 

[Umbran]

Same here. It's the simplest and most reasonable solution, IMO. It makes common sense, that the only way to help or advise someone else is if you know a bit about the skill yourself. How would the lumbering Fighter in full plate with a negative DEX, who's never picked a lock before, be able to help the trained Rogue pick a lock better?

Noting, of course, that the rules say:

"A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves' tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can't help another character in that task. Moreover, a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as threading a needle, are no easier with help."

So, this is already covered.

I generally allow Working Together when the aiding character has some skill that is relevant. The rouge may be trying to get information from a noble with Persuasion. If the cleric knows relevant parts of History that would support the Rogue, then the cleric can help even if he isn't proficient in Persuasion.