Why doesn't the help action have more limits and down sides?

[Ovinomancer]

Outside of the occasional Athletics check for the Wizard or the Rogue, is this actually happening in any games you play? This sound very theoretical and not actually practical.

If a group is getting killed because they made such terrible characters that nobody in the party can accomplish basic dungeoning or dragoning, then maybe the group should just die. These characters clearly weren't smart enough to recognize that they should have never left the farm.

In every real world game of 5E D&D I've ever played, the one where Standard Array all but guarantees a character will end up with at least a +3 in their primary stat and thus a +5 on proficient skill checks, no group is routinely failing these checks, and it's bad game design to write adventures aiming at a party of incompetents. Every group I have been in had the Fighter or the Barbarian doing the lifting, the Bard or Sorcerer doing the talking, and the Wizards making the Nature checks.

All the time, actually. Even if you're playing in a way that the party is never separated, never has divergent goals, and always puts it's best [-]PC[\-] forward, there's still plenty of chance for failure. Take your +5 (as good as it gets until 4th without expertise). That PC -- a well trained and physically/mentally adept character has a 20% chance to fail at an easy task. That's, like, huge. Easy is driving to the store to pick up some milk. Easy is changing a diaper (well, that can range up to nearly impossible, but we'll go with the cakewalk changes). Would you accept a 1/5 chance of failure after receiving extensive training and being in the top 10% physically and mentally for the job? DC 10 is EASY, and yet this PC can fail quite readily. Heck, an expert at this task still has a 1/10 chance of failing at this experience level. Good grief, as a player, I try everything in my power to not make rolls if at all possible because my well-trained, naturally talented PC has a solid chance of tanking that roll (h/t [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]).

Sure, after a few levels, some proficiency bonuses, some ASIs, my PC may graduate to the level of the Easy stuff being automatic. That's not a case for decrying the system, it's a case of 'thank the gods I no longer have a random 1/20 (or worse) chance of tanking this easy task!'

Even the highly skilled* don't auto-beat a DC 15 until they get a +14, which is a +5 stat and level 13+ with expertise. Without expertise, a PC never gets to the skill level of being able to beat a DC 15 task more than 85% of the time. Think on that, a level 20 character gets a +11 on proficient things (barbarians can actually hit +13 on STR, so they're a bit better off). That's plenty of risk for the moderately difficult tasks in adventuring. The poor off-stat proficient are sitting at a whopping +5 or so, so that's a 45% chance of losing a moderately difficult challenge when you're level 13 and proficient. Good grief, if anything, the skill DCs are punishingly hard.

(*Rogues, with reliable talent, throw this all off, though. It totally tanks the bounded accuracy assumptions, but then, why care? Rogues get shafted most everywhere else except action economy, why not let them be actually competent at the things they're proficient in? Still, I do wish a better way had been found. Even setting the floor at 5 would have been good. But, if it's not a prime stat skill with expertise, the rogue's bonus is still only around a +5 or 6 at the end of tier III, and that doesn't help those occasional DC 20s at all. Basically, if reliable talent doesn't autosucceed, it doesn't help, which is weird, if you think about it. Ah well, enough of this rant against the clunky design of reliable talent.)

 

[iserith]

All the time, actually. Even if you're playing in a way that the party is never separated, never has divergent goals, and always puts it's best [-]PC[\-] forward, there's still plenty of chance for failure. Take your +5 (as good as it gets until 4th without expertise). That PC -- a well trained and physically/mentally adept character has a 20% chance to fail at an easy task. That's, like, huge. Easy is driving to the store to pick up some milk. Easy is changing a diaper (well, that can range up to nearly impossible, but we'll go with the cakewalk changes). Would you accept a 1/5 chance of failure after receiving extensive training and being in the top 10% physically and mentally for the job? DC 10 is EASY, and yet this PC can fail quite readily. Heck, an expert at this task still has a 1/10 chance of failing at this experience level. Good grief, as a player, I try everything in my power to not make rolls if at all possible because my well-trained, naturally talented PC has a solid chance of tanking that roll (h/t [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]).

Sure, after a few levels, some proficiency bonuses, some ASIs, my PC may graduate to the level of the Easy stuff being automatic. That's not a case for decrying the system, it's a case of 'thank the gods I no longer have a random 1/20 (or worse) chance of tanking this easy task!'

Even the highly skilled* don't auto-beat a DC 15 until they get a +14, which is a +5 stat and level 13+ with expertise. Without expertise, a PC never gets to the skill level of being able to beat a DC 15 task more than 85% of the time. Think on that, a level 20 character gets a +11 on proficient things (barbarians can actually hit +13 on STR, so they're a bit better off). That's plenty of risk for the moderately difficult tasks in adventuring. The poor off-stat proficient are sitting at a whopping +5 or so, so that's a 45% chance of losing a moderately difficult challenge when you're level 13 and proficient. Good grief, if anything, the skill DCs are punishingly hard.

(*Rogues, with reliable talent, throw this all off, though. It totally tanks the bounded accuracy assumptions, but then, why care? Rogues get shafted most everywhere else except action economy, why not let them be actually competent at the things they're proficient in? Still, I do wish a better way had been found. Even setting the floor at 5 would have been good. But, if it's not a prime stat skill with expertise, the rogue's bonus is still only around a +5 or 6 at the end of tier III, and that doesn't help those occasional DC 20s at all. Basically, if reliable talent doesn't autosucceed, it doesn't help, which is weird, if you think about it. Ah well, enough of this rant against the clunky design of reliable talent.)

Thanks for that. It's neat to see something of substance like math undergirds the nonsense I spout. Consider this bookmarked for future reference!

 

[5ekyu]

Just as an aside, i tend to use the dmg model of 1p, 15, 20 based on the difficukty triad they give - nrither skilked nor exceptional easy) skill and exceptional (20), and either/or (moderate). This is based on either the basic idea of "who" setup the challenge/opposition ir if no ref who "should" be able to likely succeed.

The adjustment i add follows the advantage/disad guides for dc (+5 or -5) in cases where its clear circumstances or resources ort effort would change the difficulty. (Been neglected or cheaped out miserly, exceptiinally suspicious with resources to burn, etc.)

That seems to work fine.

Sure it means 10th level guys might encounter DC 10 checks and 5th levels might hit dc25... But the key in play is that it remains consistent and understsndable and makes sense... It can be informative even.

But really, i dont get fretting and worked up over dc 15 or dc 20 xhecks being reliably beaten by 11th level rogues in areas they are good at as a class festure... Not at all...

Cuz you know, since like 2nd level spells and on dcs have been being flat out slammed dead by class abilities right n left and sideways. Before that even.

"Yes, i think your automatic 20 dc climb check is a bad game element, rogue" says the 3rd level levitating wizard .

 

[Veteran Sergeant]

I guess it just requires the believe that PCs are supposed to Auto Succeed at things at some point and that the possibility of failure is something to be avoided. Seems like that removes any sense of jeopardy and renders the idea of making the check irrelevant in the first place, but hey. There may be some disconnect with how competent a Level 1 Character is supposed to be.

Perhaps you just need to temper your perception of what an Easy task is. None of those things you described as Easy should even require a skill check. Those things are routine. Why are characters in your game making checks on routine actions? The idea of the skill check is, by definition, something where there is a chance of failure. Rolling a Skill Check to drive to the store or changing a diaper would be silly, even at DC 5, since only the clumsiest character could be expected to fail even 5% of the time. That's the concession of D&D. When the variance is only 5%, you just don't bother to roll for things with a failure rate of less than 5%.

On the other hand, checks in D&D should be challenging, otherwise why are you even bothering to roll? Low level characters should struggle and fail from time to time, otherwise what's the point of leveling and getting better? Heck, it's the whole reason for the Help action. If my Str 8 Wizard needs to climb a wall or cross a chasm, somebody more competent than him should probably be helping tie the ropes and hammer the pitons. It shouldn't be just one character searching a room, etc. There's a Party for a reason. Occasional failure isn't "Punishing" it's just adversity. /shrug

 

[iserith]

I guess it just requires the believe that PCs are supposed to Auto Succeed at things at some point and that the possibility of failure is something to be avoided. Seems like that removes any sense of jeopardy and renders the idea of making the check irrelevant in the first place, but hey. There may be some disconnect with how competent a Level 1 Character is supposed to be.

Perhaps you just need to temper your perception of what an Easy task is. None of those things you described as Easy should even require a skill check. Those things are routine. Why are characters in your game making checks on routine actions? The idea of the skill check is, by definition, something where there is a chance of failure. Rolling a Skill Check to drive to the store or changing a diaper would be silly, even at DC 5, since only the clumsiest character could be expected to fail even 5% of the time. That's the concession of D&D. When the variance is only 5%, you just don't bother to roll for things with a failure rate of less than 5%.

On the other hand, checks in D&D should be challenging, otherwise why are you even bothering to roll? Low level characters should struggle and fail from time to time, otherwise what's the point of leveling and getting better? Heck, it's the whole reason for the Help action. If my Str 8 Wizard needs to climb a wall or cross a chasm, somebody more competent than him should probably be helping tie the ropes and hammer the pitons. It shouldn't be just one character searching a room, etc. There's a Party for a reason. Occasional failure isn't "Punishing" it's just adversity. /shrug

I think the way to interpret the examples of "driving to the store" or "changing a diaper" would be as the equivalent "easy adventuring tasks for an adventurer given an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure." Not that the tasks themselves are necessarily mundane, have a certain outcome, and no meaningful consequence of failure.

 

[ClaytonCross]

So the way I see it the DMG does not allow for high enough test because their is not marked improvement one you pass DC 25, Its not about trying to pass the test anymore its about reducing your chance at failing roles. Expertise + max skill means most skill tests can be reduced to 15% failure at late game but potions of storm giant +9 strength modifier (+4) on checks or gloves of thievery +5 to open locks and toms that raise attribute above 20, can actually make it impossible to fail specific tests as high as 28. So following on the low test DC of materials and the advantage that help actions might give to those would lead to a DC map like this:

DC44 Might actually be an impossible auto fail, I can't think of any skill test magic item that adds more than a +5 or stacks.
DC39 Requires magic either skill bonus or tome that raises ability scores beyond 20 with the exception of an athletics test by a barbarian with expertise.
DC37 (This is the peek of basic stars align impossible test without magical involvement but not without any hope making it an auto fail test... Natural 20 + 5 Ability bonus +12 Expertise
DC33 (Impossible for even the best trained unless they have the natural ability to back it up)
DC30 (Impossible without training or magical items, but difficult even then.)
DC25 (Impossible without training or a great deal of natural talent or magical items)
DC20 (Hard but not impossible for an unskilled character to do this without but it does happen unless they have a deficiency -1 in such things)
DC15 (Challenging but some times it an unskilled character will surprise you, with a high roll)
DC10 (easy but fail able, particularly if your don't know what your doing meaning your not proficient)
DC 5 (Generally an automatic pass for anyone proficient, but who knows, if someone without proficiency or natural ability it could make for an amusing fail)

But I don't think help actions require or break the basic DC25 max because they don't raise the skills max they just reduce failure roles. Its kind of the same thought you see in not bothering to list DCs above DC25 that would be possible by some specific classes and abilities.

I think Ovinomancer kind of points to the same thing on his post at the top of this page.

 

[Hussar]

How is a rogue getting a +19 to a skill check so that he can auto succeed a DC 20?

 

[ClaytonCross]

How is a rogue getting a +19 to a skill check so that he can auto succeed a DC 20?

Its not all skills, but rogues can pick dex and one other ability state max out to 20 for +5
They get skill proficiency (+2 to +6) and expertise (+2 to +6) in 6 different skills if they go scout (4 with any other subclass) that they can pick using the two abilities they maxed out.
At level 11 they get reliable talent which means any role under 10 using a skill that they are proficient with, it is considered a 10 for those skill tests despite the role

The lowest a level 20 rogue can get on a test they maxed the ability, are proficient with, and took expertise in is 27 (10 + 5 + 6 + 6) and auto succeed equal or less.

If you want to go lower at level 11 they can setup 23 (10 +5 +4 +4)

At level 5 they can setup 11 (1 +4 +3 +3) so they already no longer fail any basic tests, but they can only do it with 4 by selecting scout, they get to do it with 6 at level 6 and up. (4 with any other sup class)

They can also take the Prodigy feat from Zanthar's for 1 more expertise as well as multi-class 1 level in Knowledge domain cleric of 2 more for a possible 9 skills with expertise and we haven't even talked about bards...

I think 9 skills is the most they can functionally max 3 dexterity + (Thieves tool's) plus 5 intelligence, 5 wisdom, or 4 Charisma unless they were willing to take a minor loss in dex to max intelligence and wisdom but ... I wouldn't..

 

[CapnZapp]

Thanks.

It's almost like the devs don't know how to maximize using the rules they themselves wrote...

 

[cmad1977]

Thanks.

It's almost like the devs don't know how to maximize using the rules they themselves wrote...

OR, they aren’t completely incapable of running the game they designed. I mean, feats don’t break their games or the games of most people who play. Some folks just need more practice.