[UA] New Help Action Weirdness

[ZRN]

The revised Help action now only allows you to Help an ally if you are proficient in the relevant skill. We can debate how this affects the game overall (I generally like the idea), but it's worth noting that the math is weird: when one party member is proficient and the other isn't, it's now often far more effective to have the NON-proficient character attempt a skill check so that the proficient character can Help them, rather than have the proficient character attempt it without help.

Example: a level 1 rogue and monk (both 16 dex) want to open a DC14 lock. The rogue is proficient in thieves' tools and the monk isn't. If the rogue attempts to pick the lock, he has a +5 bonus (3 dex, 2 prof), giving him a 60% chance of success. If he has expertise, that goes up to 70%. If the monk attempts it without help, he has a 50% chance of success. But with the rogue using the Help action to assist the monk, he has a 75% chance.

This effect is less pronounced at higher levels, when the proficiency bonus is higher, but it remains a factor even then. (Depending on the DC and bonus, advantage is worth up to about +5, I believe.) It's even more pronounced for bards, who can now use Bardic Inspiration on allies when they fail a roll but not on themselves.

[MrStabby]

The revised Help action now only allows you to Help an ally if you are proficient in the relevant skill. We can debate how this affects the game overall (I generally like the idea), but it's worth noting that the math is weird: when one party member is proficient and the other isn't, it's now often far more effective to have the NON-proficient character attempt a skill check so that the proficient character can Help them, rather than have the proficient character attempt it without help.

Example: a level 1 rogue and monk (both 16 dex) want to open a DC14 lock. The rogue is proficient in thieves' tools and the monk isn't. If the rogue attempts to pick the lock, he has a +5 bonus (3 dex, 2 prof), giving him a 60% chance of success. If he has expertise, that goes up to 70%. If the monk attempts it without help, he has a 50% chance of success. But with the rogue using the Help action to assist the monk, he has a 75% chance.

This effect is less pronounced at higher levels, when the proficiency bonus is higher, but it remains a factor even then. (Depending on the DC and bonus, advantage is worth up to about +5, I believe.) It's even more pronounced for bards, who can now use Bardic Inspiration on allies when they fail a roll but not on themselves.

Huh. An interesting point and probably unintended.

[ZRN]

Huh. An interesting point and probably unintended.

Yeah. I don't even really hate it - kind of makes me want to play a grizzled mentor-type bard who likes to teach his teammates how things are done. But it IS kind of weird.

[clash]

I can only hazard a guess but my assumption for the intended behavior is that a proficient character performs the task and if there's a second proficient character they can assist to reward doubling up on proficiencies. But if they want that behavior they should codify it explicitly.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I can only hazard a guess but my apron for the intended behavior is that a proficient character performs the task and if there's a second proficient character they can assist to reward doubling up on proficiencies. But if the want that behavior they would cost it explicitly.

I have been using "help requires proficiency" as a rule since the beginning. It felt right and honored the choices players made at creation in choosing skills they would not be the best in. If both characters have the skill, the one with THE MOST skill is the one who rolls, which avoids this math.

In extremis, for purely physical task requiring some minimal coordination (breaking down a door), I'd probably just add the helping player's STRMOD instead of full blown advantage.

Yes, Stabby, this does make the grizzled bard an amazing mentor in so many ways beyond CHA skills. I paired one with an assassin with sharpshooter and a heavy crossbow. Bardic inspiration, mentor...this was my tribute to "Leon the Professional."

[JackPhoenix]

I'd like to point out that the example used in OP is pretty bad, as you need proficiency in thieves' tools to to pick locks, so the monk couldn't even try, help or not.

[Dark.Revenant]

I'd like to point out that the example used in OP is pretty bad, as you need proficiency in thieves' tools to to pick locks, so the monk couldn't even try, help or not.

You only need proficiency to pick standard locks (door locks, manacles, and 'locks' from the equipment list). Nonstandard locks typically have no such restriction. RAW often makes no damn sense at all.

[ZRN]

I'd like to point out that the example used in OP is pretty bad, as you need proficiency in thieves' tools to to pick locks, so the monk couldn't even try, help or not.

Just read through the post, every time I say "thieves' tool" mentally replace it with "Performance skill," and every time I say "pick a lock" mentally replace it with "do a delightful DC14 jig."

[Person_Man]

Yeah, I’ve always required this as a house rule. It makes sense, and rewards players for doubling up on proficiencies.

[Chronos]

Everyone talking about "doubling up on proficiencies", please re-read the OP. Certainly the best case will be when both characters are proficient, but suppose you need to perform some task at which one and only one party member is proficient? Assuming you have a choice, which party member is the best choice to make the attempt? One would expect that it would be best for the one proficient character to make the attempt, but under this rule, that isn't the case.

[animewatcha]

So does this mean that 'jack of all trades' bard can't help for skills that he doesn't have proficiency in even despite 'add half proficiency bonus' etc. etc. Sounds like WOTC discrimination or oversight or something.

[Kurt Kurageous]

So does this mean that 'jack of all trades' bard can't help for skills that he doesn't have proficiency in even despite 'add half proficiency bonus' etc. etc. Sounds like WOTC discrimination or oversight or something.

Bardic inspiration, then?

[animewatcha]

Which is like the help action with extra steps and therefore makes it more complicated. Not as attractive for a product. Certainly not when their company is trying to be 'diverse and inclusive.'

[Amechra]

OK, crunching some numbers:

Assume that you have proficiency (or maybe expertise) in a relevant skill and your buddy doesn't. Also assume that both of you are racing to max out the relevant ability score ASAP (+3 at 1st, +4 at 4th, +5 at 8th),

DC 10:
If you're just proficient, you're better off Helping your friend until 9th level. If you have expertise, you're better off until 4th level.

DC 15
If you're just proficient, you're better off Helping your friend until 13th level. If you have expertise, you're better off until 5th level.

DC 20
If you're just proficient, you're better off Helping your friend until 13th level. If you have expertise, you're always better off just doing it yourself.

[animewatcha]

Don't forget the appropriate tool proficiency AND skill proficiency is supposed to mean that before your buddy is taken into account you have Prof. bonus added AND advantage.

[ZRN]

OK, crunching some numbers:

Assume that you have proficiency (or maybe expertise) in a relevant skill and your buddy doesn't. Also assume that both of you are racing to max out the relevant ability score ASAP (+3 at 1st, +4 at 4th, +5 at 8th),

DC 10:
If you're just proficient, you're better off Helping your friend until 9th level. If you have expertise, you're better off until 4th level.

DC 15
If you're just proficient, you're better off Helping your friend until 13th level. If you have expertise, you're better off until 5th level.

DC 20
If you're just proficient, you're better off Helping your friend until 13th level. If you have expertise, you're always better off just doing it yourself.

With the new lore bard being forced to take knowledge skills, I can see a lot of cases where he might use the Help action on knowledge checks to "remind" the party wizard (with a higher Int) about stuff.

[Segev]

There is the rule that whether helping makes sense at all is up to the DM. It may be that Helping gets more restricted, now, to only situations where it matters that Bob, rather than Steve The Proficient, succeeds on the task.

If having Steve help Bob with lockpicking makes it easier for Steve to succeed than it does Bob, even though Bob is not proficient and doesn't have a higher bonus, maybe it doesn't make sense for Bob to be doing it "with Steve's help" at all.

That said, the RAW shouldn't require that much DM "mother, may I" activity. Whether it makes sense shouldn't require examining how the probabilities change, only how the actual help might legitimately be given.

Maybe it makes more sense for ability check help actions to simply have everyone check and use the highest result. It overlaps neatly with how players try to game it, anyway. "Oh, Steve rolled a 1? I will have Bob give it a try."

"Help" and "sequential tries" are then the same thing except for time spent, and you can limit both to one roll per person per task, and decide if helping vs. sequential attempts even makes sense. And if synergistic effort really matters – like, say, lifting a portcullis – then you can set a particularly high DC and let them just add their results together.