PCs Always Gain Advantage from Aiding Each Other

[Argothair]

Does anyone else find that their PCs are almost constantly gaining advantage on skill checks by aiding each other?

A: I listen through the door to see if I can hear who's behind it.
B: I help you!

A: I search the room for secret doors.
B: I'll help!

A: I'll quickly climb up onto the bridge using this rope, even though I'm a weak, klutzy wizard.
B: I help you climb.

A: I persuade the goblin to do something that's totally against his interest.
B: I'll help persuade the goblin!

The PCs never bother to add any flavor to how they're helping...they just want to roll an extra die. I could insist that characters specify *how* they're helping, but 90% of the time, they could at least think of something plausible to say...I shush the other characters so it's quiet behind the door, or I hold the lantern for you to make searching easier, or whatever. It doesn't actually change the mechanics, and I feel petty insisting on a detailed description if that's not what the players are excited about.

So is that normal? Are characters pretty much always supposed to have advantage on their skill checks, even if only one party member has any decent ranks in whatever the relevant skill is, or only one party member speaks Goblin? How do other DMs handle this?

A variant of this problem is that if the players are searching for secret objects, sometimes all five players want to roll separately, and, really, if any of them find the MacGuffin, then they'll all have access to it. It's effectively rolling with super-advantage (five dice, keep your best roll). But if the players are trying to sneak through a hallway, then that's rolling with super-disadvantage (roll five dice, the worst die can give the party away). Is finding stuff supposed to be three times easier than sneaking around? If not, how do you even things out?

[No brains]

Not doing anything to aid a perception check is exactly what a person should do. Quiet down! :smalltongue:

[DrowPiratRobrts]

In general I don't have a problem with this as a player or a DM. Let me be clear, it happens all the time. You're not alone. But as a DM I do require players to explain/role-play their assistance. And as a player I do this and encourage the party to do it. It makes everything way more interesting and less "gamey." That helps us avoid an abuse, because if there's a reasonable way to help someone in your adventuring party then it's illogical for a character not to act on that opportunity. Some examples below of things we've done recently:

-My owl familiar helps me shoot a hostile mote of light with Firebolt. I tell my DM that it's tough to see it in the sunlight, so Owlbert flies circles around it to help me hone in and hit the target. If its an orc or something he instead distracts it so the creature hopefully doesn't see me casting and try to duck out of the way.

-We're trying to convince the Elf Queen to trust us instead of who we think is the BBEG at this point. Our party leader is crushing it in some Role-Play dialogue before he roles persuasion (depending on how well somebody argues tends to affect the DC, whether they do it OOC or IC). I jump in before he roles and cast minor illusion to play back some scenes of our heroic deeds in a sort of montage, trying to demonstrate that we're trustworthy and even self-sacrificing. We all got hit in the feels briefly as we reminisced about some particularly noble moments in the campaign. He got advantage on the role.

-I'm trying to climb a wall as a deep gnome Wizard. Our Goliath rogue with a +11 athletics gives me a boost or helps pull me up or something. I'm definitely getting advantage on that (though Larz would just as soon cast levitate and show off).

[mcsillas]

I've been in this dilemma at times as well. My simple way of solving the issue is to only allow a character with the necessary skill to help. For example, if you want to help investigate, you must have the investigate skill. Otherwise, you run into this situation too much where every ability check is made with advantage. Some DMs just allow most checks to be made with advantage, but I personally don't like that.

To address your comment of everyone searching for an object, use the group check rule: Everyone in the group rolls and if half are successful, then the whole party is successful. Same works for an athletics check while climbing: if the group check succeeds, then it's assumed that those that succeeded in their check helped those who did not.

[Demonslayer666]

The way I run it, is that helping another player do something may grant advantage, but not always. It depends a lot on the situation.

You can't help someone do individual tasks. For searching, perception, and persuasion I would have you roll individually.

With climb, I would allow the help action, but you would have to be anchored and stationary to help another climber, or pulling them up with a rope, or something similar.

[strangebloke]

The PCs never bother to add any flavor to how they're helping...they just want to roll an extra die. I could insist that characters specify *how* they're helping, but 90% of the time, they could at least think of something plausible to say...I shush the other characters so it's quiet behind the door, or I hold the lantern for you to make searching easier, or whatever. It doesn't actually change the mechanics, and I feel petty insisting on a detailed description if that's not what the players are excited about.

So is that normal? Are characters pretty much always supposed to have advantage on their skill checks, even if only one party member has any decent ranks in whatever the relevant skill is, or only one party member speaks Goblin? How do other DMs handle this?

A variant of this problem is that if the players are searching for secret objects, sometimes all five players want to roll separately, and, really, if any of them find the MacGuffin, then they'll all have access to it. It's effectively rolling with super-advantage (five dice, keep your best roll). But if the players are trying to sneak through a hallway, then that's rolling with super-disadvantage (roll five dice, the worst die can give the party away). Is finding stuff supposed to be three times easier than sneaking around? If not, how do you even things out?

With respect to the first problem: You just need to learn to smile and shake your head at some things. Let them down gently. Many many things actions will allow for help, some will not. It may seem petty at times, but you kinda gotta draw the line somewhere.

1. You probably can't help if you are doing something else. If you're inspecting the runes on the wall, you can't help search for a hidden door. You can't help someone climb if you are climbing.

2. You can't help if your "Help" is overcoming a limitation that you just made up. You can't "help" on a Wisdom:Perception check by shushing party members, because until you said you were helping, that would impose disadvantage.

3. Many times you can't plausibly help unless you have proficiency. How are you helping matthis do alchemy if you know jack-all about the topic?

4. Some checks are purely individual. Who are you going to help Jonas recall ancient lore even though you know none yourself?

With respect to the second problem:

1. If the players have unlimited time, they will find every door, chest, and cave painting in your entire dungeon. If nothing else, they can all take 20. I use time pool (http://theangrygm.com/hacking-time-in-dnd/) rules. It's a way of tracking time in a dungeon crawl. So everyone can look for traps, but then they're not doing something else, and that will cost time, and wasting time means the monsters have time to organize/prepare. I've run this with two groups. One of them is meticulous and careful, the other is fast and furious. The fast group hits lots of light random encounters and steamrolls them, but also misses out on loot, lore, and secret passages. The meticulous group gets everything but by the time they get to the monsters, the monsters have all collected themselves and have an organized defense. I've gotten good feedback from my players, they all really like it.

2. Yes, sneaking as a group is hard. That's realistic. Five guys have a tougher time keeping to the shadows than just one. If you are in a scenario where the players can plausibly cover for each other (you're abstracting an entire montage of urban sneaking into a single check, for instance) you can just impose "Worst player rolls" rules, with each other player rolling against the DC to try and give the worst player a +1.

3. You can allow there for a "saving skill check." Like, if Clutzy Mcgee fails the roll to move silently, give Sneaky Mcsneak a moment a moment where he can try and cover for his buddy with a (higher DC) skill check. Clutzy the Dwarf's armor goes *CLANK* and the guards start mozying over, and Sneaks the Rogue yowls like a cat, throwing the guards off the scent.

4. The DMG has its own set of variant rules, called "Group Skill Checks," which just has everyone roll and try and if a majority succeeds, the group succeeds. I don't really love this option but its there.

5. Some checks should not be allowed. I often do not allow for Arcana/Religion/whatever checks unless the person would have a chance at knowing the thing due to upbringing (a thief knowing what minor illusion looked like) or if you have proficiency.

[Pelle]

Let them explain what their characters are doing, and try to be patient before deciding on how best to adjudicate each action, and try to explain why. And in cases without time pressure or meaningful consequences of failure, just default to auto-success.



A: I listen through the door to see if I can hear who's behind it.
B: I help you!


If both characters are listening, both can roll for their own character.



A: I search the room for secret doors.
B: I'll help!


If what they are doing would help, why not? If they are really searching independently, roll once for each. If they search for a long time (ask how long they are searching for), possibly auto-success.



A: I'll quickly climb up onto the bridge using this rope, even though I'm a weak, klutzy wizard.
B: I help you climb.


Sure, why not, a helping hand is always useful.



A: I persuade the goblin to do something that's totally against his interest.
B: I'll help persuade the goblin!


Here I'm more hesitant. Set the DC based on the arguments they make. It probably doesn't help being two people, but the players might find a better argument lowering the DC. The roll represent the presentation of the argument. If only one can speak the goblin language, that character rolls Cha.



A variant of this problem is that if the players are searching for secret objects, sometimes all five players want to roll separately, and, really, if any of them find the MacGuffin, then they'll all have access to it. It's effectively rolling with super-advantage (five dice, keep your best roll). But if the players are trying to sneak through a hallway, then that's rolling with super-disadvantage (roll five dice, the worst die can give the party away). Is finding stuff supposed to be three times easier than sneaking around? If not, how do you even things out?

In situations where "one check rules them all" (at least one success equals group success, or at least one failure equals group failure), an elegant method for adjudicating is to have the character with the highest/lowest modifier roll with advantage/disadvantage. You get the benefit/drawback of being more people, but not extremely so.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

The PCs never bother to add any flavor to how they're helping...they just want to roll an extra die.

Furthermore, if a player can't come up with a way they can help someone I'd generally rule against it. I don't care if they persuade the goblin in character or not, just tell me what you're actually adding to the situation that isn't already being done. If you as a player can't think of a way to help I typically won't give your character the benefit of the doubt (because it's really really easy to come up with simple ways to help your fellow compatriots).

[Argothair]

Thanks everyone for the helpful advice! :-)

[Lombra]

You can't "help" someone hearing. You can't "help" someone climbing a rope by himself. Common sense before mechanics.

Plus only a character proficient in a skill can help a character attempting that skill check.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

For searching, perception, and persuasion I would have you roll individually.


Here I'm more hesitant. Set the DC based on the arguments they make. It probably doesn't help being two people, but the players might find a better argument lowering the DC. The roll represent the presentation of the argument. If only one can speak the goblin language, that character rolls Cha.

I'm surprised that Persuasion and Intimidation roles are some that people seem to view more questionably. How many times have each of us been persuaded because someone presents an idea and then part of the way through the conversation someone else jumps in and adds something else the first person didn't say? This happened all the time in college when my friends wanted me to put down studying and go on a midnight Taco Bell run. Same thing for intimidating. Some dude could start shouting at you and it might not get to you until one or two of his boys come up behind him yelling out as well. I'd almost always let someone help in a conversational check if they can give an example of what they might try to say.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

You can't "help" someone hearing. You can't "help" someone climbing a rope by himself. Common sense before mechanics.

Plus only a character proficient in a skill can help a character attempting that skill check.

1. The hearing thing, yeah sure. They can make their own role.
2. You can give them a significant boost so that they don't have to climb as far though. That would make it much easier unless they're climbing 30 feet or so.
3. Do you have a reference for that rule about the "Help" action? Below is from the PBH.

Pg. 192 PHB

Help
You can lend your aid to another creature in the completion of a task. When you take the Help action, the creature you aid gains advantage on the next ability check it makes to perform the task you are helping with, provided that it makes the check before the start of your next turn.

Alternatively, you can aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally’s attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with advantage.

[Pelle]

I'm surprised that Persuasion and Intimidation roles are some that people seem to view more questionably. How many times have each of us been persuaded because someone presents an idea and then part of the way through the conversation someone else jumps in and adds something else the first person didn't say? This happened all the time in college when my friends wanted me to put down studying and go on a midnight Taco Bell run. Same thing for intimidating. Some dude could start shouting at you and it might not get to you until one or two of his boys come up behind him yelling out as well. I'd almost always let someone help in a conversational check if they can give an example of what they might try to say.

If you read what I wrote, you would see I would put that under the situational circumstances affecting the DC.

If two people presents many good arguments, lower the DC to reflect those additional arguments. One additional PC repeating the first arguments is not helpful.

If you and your friends have surrounded an npc, and have the power to hurt it if you want, the intimidate DC will be much lower than if you were alone.

You could possibly just use advantage in these situations instead, but it depends on the situation I find. Just think through what you want the roll to represent.

[AvvyR]

You can't "help" someone hearing. You can't "help" someone climbing a rope by himself. Common sense before mechanics.

Plus only a character proficient in a skill can help a character attempting that skill check.

This part is not actually in the rules, but rather a common house rule.

As intended, the help action on out of combat checks is intended to stop the game from getting bogged down with every character rolling their own individual checks. It's actually less dice rolling for most things, you just have the best character at the thing roll with advantage, rather than have the entire party trawling for 20's.

That said, the limit is supposed to be whether the person can actually contribute something useful. This will often depend on the circumstances.

If a player is making a Gourmand's Tools check to cook a nice dinner, anyone can help in that action, because even if you don't know the first thing about cooking, you can contribute in some way (Build a fire, stir a pot, pluck feathers off a chicken). If the sorcerer is trying to intimidate a captive, the barbarian standing behind him cracking his knuckles is going to be effective. Causing a distraction can help a Stealth or Sleight of Hand check, and anyone can be a distraction.

On the other hand, if a player is picking a lock, there's not much any one else can do to help, unless they too have specific lock-picking skills, and the two could exchange ideas and knowledge about various styles of tumbler or which pick shape is appropriate. In this case, I would deem the helping character needs to also be proficient. The same goes for knowledge checks. The fighter isn't going to be able to offer additional insight into the wizard's Arcana check, but the Warlock might.

In other cases, there's nothing anyone else can do. If the entire party is tied up, and the rogue wants to make an acrobatics check to wriggle out of the ropes, "encouraging words" isn't going to cut it. (Except in the form of Bardic Inspiration). The gnome hopping across the wet rocks to cross the rapid river after the rest of the party has crossed is on his own.

[JoeJ]

The fighter isn't going to be able to offer additional insight into the wizard's Arcana check, but the Warlock might.

The fighter can make his own check, so why can't he help the wizard? Or are you using a house rule that only characters with proficiency can recall arcane lore?

[DrowPiratRobrts]

This part is not actually in the rules, but rather a common house rule.

As intended, the help action on out of combat checks is intended to stop the game from getting bogged down with every character rolling their own individual checks. It's actually less dice rolling for most things, you just have the best character at the thing roll with advantage, rather than have the entire party trawling for 20's.

That said, the limit is supposed to be whether the person can actually contribute something useful. This will often depend on the circumstances.

If a player is making a Gourmand's Tools check to cook a nice dinner, anyone can help in that action, because even if you don't know the first thing about cooking, you can contribute in some way (Build a fire, stir a pot, pluck feathers off a chicken). If the sorcerer is trying to intimidate a captive, the barbarian standing behind him cracking his knuckles is going to be effective. Causing a distraction can help a Stealth or Sleight of Hand check, and anyone can be a distraction.

On the other hand, if a player is picking a lock, there's not much any one else can do to help, unless they too have specific lock-picking skills, and the two could exchange ideas and knowledge about various styles of tumbler or which pick shape is appropriate. In this case, I would deem the helping character needs to also be proficient. The same goes for knowledge checks. The fighter isn't going to be able to offer additional insight into the wizard's Arcana check, but the Warlock might.

In other cases, there's nothing anyone else can do. If the entire party is tied up, and the rogue wants to make an acrobatics check to wriggle out of the ropes, "encouraging words" isn't going to cut it. (Except in the form of Bardic Inspiration). The gnome hopping across the wet rocks to cross the rapid river after the rest of the party has crossed is on his own.

Yep, this is a pretty good summary of how I'd rule. Though even the Arcana check would be situational IMO. There's a chance a fighter has seen a spell or form of magic that a wizard hasn't, but identifying what spell was cast or having deep knowledge of magic runes is a much bigger stretch.

[PhantomSoul]

Pg. 192 PHB

Help
You can lend your aid to another creature in the completion of a task. When you take the Help action, the creature you aid gains advantage on the next ability check it makes to perform the task you are helping with, provided that it makes the check before the start of your next turn.

Alternatively, you can aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally’s attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with advantage.

PHB, 175:

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 m ore individuals w orking together
would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as
threading a needle, are no easier with help.

[AvvyR]

I'm saying he can't realistically contribute to the conversation. If I'm trying to calculate escape velocity of an object under given environmental conditions, a random guy who's never heard of aeronautics or calculus isn't going to help me.

In my game, I wouldn't even let him roll, see "Trawling for 20's" above.

[Sception]

If helping amounts to just also doing the thing, like helping to listen or search or persuade, than i have both players just roll their own checks. Otherwise, if its a tricky technical thing, like potion brewing or lock picking, i allow help only if the helper is also trained.

For the most part tho, i allow help as long as the players can describe hiw they're helping, and just expect players to have advantage on out of combat skill checks. Its a good thing, encouraging players not to tune out, building grpup dynamics.

Heck, half the time parties have someone with guidance anyway.

[DMThac0]

There is no problem with players helping each other, none of the examples you give are problems, the problem is something completely different.

The players are bored, or the players think there is a chance of failure.

If the players are bored they're going to look for something to do. If there's only one person active in the scene, searching for a secret door, they're most likely going to help too. If the player isn't really into RP and the conversation with the NPC has gone on for 15 minutes, you bet your sweet d20 they're going to help, just to get this over with. When you're in any given situation, try to have something the players can do; try to get half your party involved, the other half can then help in a constructive way. If it's going to be a situation where only one person is going to shine, give something for the other players to do. A conversation with the king, one of the players is the son, the rest of the group can be chatted at by other NPCs or called off to do something. Be wary of one person always having the spot light too, that can be another reason players try to help with everything that happens, they feel left out.

The chance of failure is a fun tool, if used properly. Finding a trap when you know the room is trapped, there's no chance of failure. Now disabling it on the other hand, if you help and mess up then both people get hurt. Climbing a rope, you can't fail, even the weakling can assume his party will help. Climbing a rope while being chased by Illithids...there's definitely a chance of failure, stopping to help can be dangerous for both people. Persuading an NPC to help, decent RP can guarantee a success, if there's a chance of failure, then help will make the difference. Sometimes you just have to look at them and say "You don't need to help, after a little bit they do the thing since nothing is stopping them". This will show them to "help" when it's important and just let you narrate when it's not.

Consider also who/how/what they're helping. A party of 4 adventurers trying to listen in at the same door...I'm not sticking my nose in that elf's ear. The rogue is trying to disable the fireball trap and the barbarian say's he's helping...I RAGE CUT THE RED WIRE!? You can have fun turning help around on it head.

There are going to be arguments about how I present this, but my logic is thus: If nothing can interrupt/stop a person from spending the entire session rolling a d20 until it's a success, then they automatically succeed. If there is a possibility of failure, with a real consequence, then help (and a roll) are going to be asked for. This will make the help feel useful, it will stop the boring bits, it will highlight the actions of the players, and it will speed up the game so you can get to the fun bits faster.

[Demonslayer666]

I'm surprised that Persuasion and Intimidation roles are some that people seem to view more questionably. How many times have each of us been persuaded because someone presents an idea and then part of the way through the conversation someone else jumps in and adds something else the first person didn't say? This happened all the time in college when my friends wanted me to put down studying and go on a midnight Taco Bell run. Same thing for intimidating. Some dude could start shouting at you and it might not get to you until one or two of his boys come up behind him yelling out as well. I'd almost always let someone help in a conversational check if they can give an example of what they might try to say.

Taco Bell lowered that DC considerably, that's like DC 8.

I've been in discussions where a friend joins in and derails the whole thing, not helping at all. Which is why I do individual checks. You may help, or you may hinder.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Plus only a character proficient in a skill can help a character attempting that skill check.


This part is not actually in the rules, but rather a common house rule.


On the other hand, if a player is picking a lock, there's not much any one else can do to help, unless they too have specific lock-picking skills, and the two could exchange ideas and knowledge about various styles of tumbler or which pick shape is appropriate. In this case, I would deem the helping character needs to also be proficient. The same goes for knowledge checks. The fighter isn't going to be able to offer additional insight into the wizard's Arcana check, but the Warlock might.


PHB, 175:

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 m ore individuals w orking together
would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as
threading a needle, are no easier with help.

This doesn't contradict the what I said. It also doesn't mean that, "...only a character proficient in a skill can help a character attempting that skill check."

I can attempt an Arcana check all day without proficiency. I cannot try to use thieves tools to pick a lock without proficiency though because that check is specifically given a proficiency requirement.

[PhantomSoul]

This doesn't contradict the what I said. It also doesn't mean that, "...only a character proficient in a skill can help a character attempting that skill check."

I can attempt an Arcana check all day without proficiency. I cannot try to use thieves tools to pick a lock without proficiency though because that check is specifically given a proficiency requirement.

But it is phrased in a way that means the DM can determine whether you'll be helpful at all

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Taco Bell lowered that DC considerably, that's like DC 8.

Fair play...fair play indeed.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

But it is phrased in a way that means the DM can determine whether you'll be helpful at all

Haha, so we're agreed then? That's what I've said the whole time. I'm just making the case that it's really easy to creatively help someone do a lot of things, and that you do not in fact have to have proficiency RAW to help someone with a skill check. The first part of that is my thought on how the OP might want to approach this, the second part is a rules clarification.

[GlenSmash!]

I wish my player's could remember that they can help at all.

[PhantomSoul]

Haha, so we're agreed then? That's what I've said the whole time. I'm just making the case that it's really easy to creatively help someone do a lot of things, and that you do not in fact have to have proficiency RAW to help someone with a skill check. The first part of that is my thought on how the OP might want to approach this, the second part is a rules clarification.

Raw doesn't require it unless it's a tool proficiency yeah (but for all else, RAW says to ask for DM... which is where most of these end up really!).

That said, hopefully the DM encourages creative play & thinking -- so the response to "I help X" should, in my mind, generally be "how?". The DM can also then decide how much of a help that actually is... And probably get some more entertaining stories/outcomes out of it!

[AvvyR]

This doesn't contradict the what I said. It also doesn't mean that, "...only a character proficient in a skill can help a character attempting that skill check."

I can attempt an Arcana check all day without proficiency. I cannot try to use thieves tools to pick a lock without proficiency though because that check is specifically given a proficiency requirement.

I think knowledge checks are the only place we disagree. The rules don't require you to be proficient, just that you would have some chance of success on your own. Knowledge is knowledge. You don't luck into it, it requires a level of understanding. And I don't buy the "my character heard something one time."

If Fermat's Last Theorem is on a blackboard, a security guard isn't going to solve it, even if he watched a TED talk about algebra once.

[JoeJ]

I think knowledge checks are the only place we disagree. The rules don't require you to be proficient, just that you would have some chance of success on your own. Knowledge is knowledge. You don't luck into it, it requires a level of understanding. And I don't buy the "my character heard something one time."

If Fermat's Last Theorem is on a blackboard, a security guard isn't going to solve it, even if he watched a TED talk about algebra once.

RAW, knowledge checks are to recall lore that you know, not to see whether you know something in the first place. Given that, I could certainly believe that the barbarian might sometimes be faster than the wizard to remember something they both know.

[AvvyR]

RAW, knowledge checks are to recall lore that you know, not to see whether you know something in the first place. Given that, I could certainly believe that the barbarian might sometimes be faster than the wizard to remember something they both know.

If that is indeed the case, then myself and everyone I've ever played with have been using them wrong.

It also means that yes, the assumption that you're only making checks against things everyone would know should allow everyone, proficient or not, to have a chance of success, and therefore contribute to helping.

[JoeJ]

If that is indeed the case, then myself and everyone I've ever played with have been using them wrong.

After some resistance, I've come around to AngryGM's view that 5e is a pretty good rules set that's very poorly explained in the books.

[Lunali]

I'm saying he can't realistically contribute to the conversation. If I'm trying to calculate escape velocity of an object under given environmental conditions, a random guy who's never heard of aeronautics or calculus isn't going to help me.

In my game, I wouldn't even let him roll, see "Trawling for 20's" above.

If it were me, I'd let him roll, with 20 giving what the player would consider the best possible result. In this case, the best possible result would be quickly realizing he had no idea what he was doing, on a 1 he would be absolutely convinced he got the correct answer.

[Pex]

What is you average DC you give for tasks? If you're always doing 15 or 20 then players may feel they need advantage for a chance of success. Have there be plenty of DC 10 and no need to roll they just do it. When players have more confidence they can do things by themselves there's less need for help, to have help only when they truly need it.

[Malifice]

A: I listen through the door to see if I can hear who's behind it.
B: I help you!


How exactly?

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I think knowledge checks are the only place we disagree. The rules don't require you to be proficient, just that you would have some chance of success on your own. Knowledge is knowledge. You don't luck into it, it requires a level of understanding. And I don't buy the "my character heard something one time."

If Fermat's Last Theorem is on a blackboard, a security guard isn't going to solve it, even if he watched a TED talk about algebra once.


RAW, knowledge checks are to recall lore that you know, not to see whether you know something in the first place. Given that, I could certainly believe that the barbarian might sometimes be faster than the wizard to remember something they both know.

Right, because even though I only took one math class in college, I actually do know a little about Fermat's Last Theorem and quite a bit about Euler's set theory and particle physics for someone who never took those classes. Because of that, it might be easier for me to recall information about those topics because it's the only higher math I've been exposed to. It stands out in my mind even though I lack "proficiency."

A barbarian who saw a really powerful display of magic or something one time might recognize it more quickly than a Wizard who has been exposed to so much magic over a lifetime. "So you're sayin' there's a chance!" The role in my mind reflects the chance that A: Any given PC has encountered "Knowledge X" and B: They can recall it in the moment. Otherwise a wizard should never fail to identify a spell they know. They might know it, but they could also mistake it for many other spells or fail to connect another wizards notation/somatic movements to that spell.

[sophontteks]

Persuasion checks are easy to assist if worded right. The other person just reinforces what the first one said "following their lead" as opposed to making their own pitch. This is one of the easier things to assist with and since its an NPC and not an object, they don't have unlimited opportunities. Really all of the charisma checks are pretty easy to assist with consistently without gaming the system.

Intelligence checks and wisdom checks don't really get any assistance. Not does acrobatics, stealth, or athletics checks.

[Tikkun]

The first thing that came to mind is do they mean help by casting guidance on the person executing the task? If so, that is a legitimate, and, in fact, purpose of that cantrip--to assist in sucessfully completing a skill check. In one of my groups, whenever someone is attempting any form of skill check, our nature cleric is always saying "I cast guidance on him/her/it". It's gotten so repetitive that our DM now just looks t him, he nods and the player adds the 1d4 automatically. Any other form of assistance, the DM simply says :"Who is doing the check? Only one person can."

I think it speeds up the game and keeps things moving along nicely. To be fair, everyone at our table has played D & D before and know most of the rules.

[sophontteks]

The first thing that came to mind is do they mean help by casting guidance on the person executing the task? If so, that is a legitimate, and, in fact, purpose of that cantrip--to assist in sucessfully completing a skill check. In one of my groups, whenever someone is attempting any form of skill check, our nature cleric is always saying "I cast guidance on him/her/it". It's gotten so repetitive that our DM now just looks t him, he nods and the player adds the 1d4 automatically. Any other form of assistance, the DM simply says :"Who is doing the check? Only one person can."

I think it speeds up the game and keeps things moving along nicely. To be fair, everyone at our table has played D & D before and know most of the rules.
Players can assist others in various skill checks. It is a seperate mechanic from guidance.

If someone is performing another could assist by playing an instrument to accompany the performance.

If someone is opening a heavy door, someone can grab their hips and help pull.

This would provide the player doing the check with advantage.

[Sception]

OP sounds like a children's cartoon villain bitter about those blasted heroes foiling their plans yet again using the powers of FRIENDSHIP and TEAM WORK, which obviously counts as cheating somehow. :p

[Malifice]

If a Player states they are Helping another PC, ask: 'how?'

Nothing ****s me more than when a PC states he 'Uses/rolls perception down the coridoor' or 'Takes the Help action to assist in a skill check.'

You tell me what your PC is doing. I tell you what to roll (if anything) what skill to check against (if aplicable).

I hate hearing 'I search the chest.' I want to hear how you are searching the chest. If there is a secret compartment in the bottom of the chest and you state you are tapping the bottom of the chest, I'll give you advantage on your Investigate check to determine the chest has a secret compartment. If you're shaking the chest, you automatically hear the hidden loot rattling around inside, and find it no check required.

Dont announce a skill to me. Tell me what your PC is doing, and Ill set the DC and determine what check (if any) is required.

Same deal with eh Help action. Dont tell me you're 'taking the Help action'. Narrate to me your actions in how you are helping a skill check, and I'll tell you if you are in fact helping that check or if you are instead getting in the way, making it harder, or maybe even making it automatically succesful.

[Ganymede]

In the end, every PC's attempt to help another will always be by gently rubbing their shoulders while the other completes the task.

"I'll listen at the door."

"I'll help him by giving him a shoulder massage."

[Malifice]

In the end, every PC's attempt to help another will always be by gently rubbing their shoulders while the other completes the task.

"I'll listen at the door."

"I'll help him by giving him a shoulder massage."

How on earth does that Help someone listen? If anything it provides a distraction.

'Make your Perception check with disadvantage.'

[Ganymede]

How on earth does that Help someone listen? If anything it provides a distraction.

'Make your Perception check with disadvantage.'

"You attempt to listen, but you can't hear anything over the sound of your racing heart."

[Malifice]

"You attempt to listen, but you can't hear anything over the sound of your racing heart."

'I turn and embrace the Wizard, kissing him passionately.'

[Sception]

http://sydlexia.com/imagesandstuff/superpunchout/doc.gif
"helping"

[Malifice]

http://sydlexia.com/imagesandstuff/superpunchout/doc.gif
"helping"

The guy at the back is a Bard.