Potential houserule: aiding another requires proficiency.

[H_H_F_F]

Okay, title is overstating the case a bit - this isn't meant to be a hard ruling, just a suggestion on handling aiding another with a skill.

If you're not proficient in nature, there's no way for you to help the wizard trying to identify this weird bug you've found. If you're not proficient in performance, you're not going to be able to enhance the bard's routine. If you've never seen a horse before, you won't be of much help to the ranger currently trying to calm one down.

You need to be able to provide some actual benefit to grant someone advantage. "I'll get some books for you" doesn't cut it, when your character has no scholarly tendencies. I might say you can cut down the research time by 1/10 that way, but if I was in a library trying to hunt down the source for some claim about the supposed interregnum between Aurelian and Tacitus's regimes, my sister who has no academic background is going to be of little help.

So no, your animal companion can't aid you with your studies of arcane mysteries. Find someone with the appropriate training.

[KorvinStarmast]

Okay, title is overstating the case a bit - this isn't meant to be a hard ruling, just a suggestion on handling aiding another with a skill.

If you're not proficient in nature, there's no way for you to help the wizard trying to identify this weird bug you've found. If you're not proficient in performance, you're not going to be able to enhance the bard's routine. If you've never seen a horse before, you won't be of much help to the ranger currently trying to calm one down.

You need to be able to provide some actual benefit to grant someone advantage. "I'll get some books for you" doesn't cut it, when your character has no scholarly tendencies. I might say you can cut down the research time by 1/10 that way, but if I was in a library trying to hunt down the source for some claim about the supposed interregnum between Aurelian and Tacitus's regimes, my sister who has no academic background is going to be of little help.

So no, your animal companion can't aid you with your studies of arcane mysteries. Find someone with the appropriate training.
I disagree with this premise, however, I've played with a few DM's who do this for simplicity's sake. It's annoying but not fatal.

[H_H_F_F]

I disagree with this premise, however, I've played with a few DM's who do this for simplicity's sake. It's annoying but not fatal.

How do you handle it? Universally allowed, or just ruling on a case-by-case basis?

[Mastikator]

That's how we run at our table, it works fine. It means it's useful to have two people with the same skill/tool proficiency.

[Psyren]

This is how the Help action works as of the latest 5.5e playtest, FYI, so your group may appreciate the practice.

[KorvinStarmast]

How do you handle it? Universally allowed, or just ruling on a case-by-case basis? In most cases, the players rarely offer to help. That's on them. When someone does offer to help, it is usually "roll with advantage" unless it's one of those "thieves tools, you can't both do that at once" kind of things.

It's situational, yes. It is rare that I'd require proficiency to help; the default is yes, the exception "in this case you need to be proficienct to help." Language in particular is a case where I require proficiency.

Animal handling generally applies to already domesticated animals, if one looks at the ability description.
Helping someone who is proficient in most cases won't require proficiency.

But most importantly: I ask the helping player to describe what their character does to help the other character. Get into the fiction, eh?
If the answer is "I take the help action" that will, as often as not, elicit a "give me something to work with" or "no" from me.

We aren't playing a video game.

[Hiro Quester]

We play with this house rule. It mostly works fine.

But there may be exceptions, if you can explain how you use a different skill to help.

e.g a PC with intimidation might glower menacingly behind the face to help on their persuasion check.

Our DM also makes a exception for knowledge checks: you know it or you don’t. So help from others isn’t possible. Each can roll independently though. (Personally I disagree with that one; collaborative remembering is a real phenomenon.)

[Psyren]

But most importantly: I ask the helping player to describe what their character does to help the other character. Get into the fiction, eh?
If the answer is "I take the help action" that will, as often as not, elicit a "give me something to work with" or "no" from me.

We aren't playing a video game.

I would suggest some potential options for the player here, especially if they're newer to the whole roleplaying thing. They may not know exactly how they might help, but if their character is trained at the ability in question, the character should see plenty of opportunity.

[DarknessEternal]

"Sorry buddy, there's no way I can just hold this rope to help you climb up this rock. I'm not a trained athlete, so holding something is too hard for me."

No, this is stupid.

[Skrum]

My table plays with this rule. I wasn't even fully aware this was a house rule. But yeah, I prefer it. The lack of skill mechanics in this game is rather appalling, and you know what, I want skill choices to matter. Because of the lack of development of what skills are supposed to be, I feel the game often strays into "make whatever check you want that you can put up with the barest justification." It's just characters rolling their best skill. And I don't like that.

Aiding another, yeah you gotta be proficient.

[Tanarii]

So my first thought is: That's not what proficiency represents.

Proficiency represents focus on one subset of what an ability score provides. Not training/knowledge. The base ability score can already represent training/knowledge.

Example: A Wizard with Int 18 and no Arcana skill proficiency and an EK with Int 14 and Arcana proficiency may be equally trained on a question of Arcana Lore. Similarly a Barbarian with Str 18 and no Athletics proficiency is very likely to be equally trained in Athletics maneuvers as a Rogue with Str 10 and Athletics (Expertise).


--------

Secondly:

To Help, you have to be capable of helping. You have to have the training/knowledge, and you have to do something that helps. This may require establishing the state-of-the-character first.

Just like to make an Int check to remember something, you need to have known it in the first place. This may require establishing the state-of-the-character first. You don't make an Intelligence (Lore) check to determine if you ever learned something, to determine the state-of-the-character. You make an Intelligence (Lore) check to recall something you knew in the heat of the moment. Or you take ten times as long, and automatically succeed.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would suggest some potential options for the player here, especially if they're newer to the whole roleplaying thing. They may not know exactly how they might help, but if their character is trained at the ability in question, the character should see plenty of opportunity. I invite you to check out chapter one of the PHB, and the three steps of how to play.
I discuss that with newbies.
Most of the people I now play with are not newbies. With newbies, of course I coach, since I learned how to be a good DM a long, long time ago. Coaching is a part of being a good DM. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/124798/22566) You are invited not to try to teach Granny how to suck eggs.

"Sorry buddy, there's no way I can just hold this rope to help you climb up this rock. I'm not a trained athlete, so holding something is too hard for me."

No, this is stupid. Correct.


Proficiency represents focus on one subset of what an ability score provides. Not training/knowledge. We have a winner.

--------


you have to do something that helps. This may require establishing the state-of-the-character first.
. That's a good point. Back to "does this make sense within the fictional situation we are all looking at/involved in/experiencing?"

[Skrum]

So my first thought is: That's not what proficiency represents.

Proficiency represents focus on one subset of what an ability score provides. Not training/knowledge. The base ability score can already represent training/knowledge.

This seems like a very convoluted stretch to me, and the far more intuitive interpretation is ability score represents raw ability, while proficiency represents actual training.

I would not allow, for example, a character without proficiency in the relevant knowledge skill to make a flyer check on an obscure bit of lore. The d20 is far too impactful on the overall outcome, and it massively devalues the choices made to take a skill at all.

Do you really want to be the wizard with +10 to their arcana checks to get Will Hunting'd by the barb because they rolled an 19 and you rolled a 3? No, that feels terrible.

Proficiency should mean something *in itself,* not just be a ~15% more likely to succeed.

[Psyren]

"Sorry buddy, there's no way I can just hold this rope to help you climb up this rock. I'm not a trained athlete, so holding something is too hard for me."

No, this is stupid.

I would say that if the action itself doesn't require proficiency then neither should the Help. Climbing a ladder or rope is one thing, scaling a wall unaided is another.


I invite you to check out chapter one of the PHB, and the three steps of how to play.

I invite you to look up a term called "collaborative storytelling." The DM helping the players describe the how of their actions is not a new concept.

[KorvinStarmast]

I invite you to look up a term called "collaborative storytelling." The DM helping the players describe the how of their actions is not a new concept. Not sure if you believe that your condescension to your players is welcome, but it's not a good technique. Pro tip for you.

[Psyren]

Not sure if you believe that your condescension to your players is welcome, but it's not a good technique. Pro tip for you.

Do you really see all forms of collaboration as condescension? Because... that's not very "pro."

[GeneralVryth]

This seems like a very convoluted stretch to me, and the far more intuitive interpretation is ability score represents raw ability, while proficiency represents actual training.

I would not allow, for example, a character without proficiency in the relevant knowledge skill to make a flyer check on an obscure bit of lore. The d20 is far too impactful on the overall outcome, and it massively devalues the choices made to take a skill at all.

Do you really want to be the wizard with +10 to their arcana checks to get Will Hunting'd by the barb because they rolled an 19 and you rolled a 3? No, that feels terrible.

Proficiency should mean something *in itself,* not just be a ~15% more likely to succeed.

This is something I have always been of 2 minds about. If this does bother you though, the answer is to use 3d6 instead of a d20 for skill checks. The more normal distribution of 3d6 puts greater emphasis on the bonus without changing much of the range of possibilities.

As for the initial thread topic. It's also a house rule I would be fine with, but I would be fine without it. I tend to think the describing how you are helping bit is key, and having that be applicable is more important that proficiency. Also, for all the comments about you know it or you don't knowledge checks. How often in the real world do you get reminded about something you know but couldn't immediately recall? What about times when you were just discussing a tangential topic and had a bit of light-bulb moment?

[Tanarii]

This seems like a very convoluted stretch to me, and the far more intuitive interpretation is ability score represents raw ability, while proficiency represents actual training.
It's how the PHB defines them.

PHB 173, Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores, Ability Scores and Modifiers
Each of a creature's abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature's training and competence in activities related to that ability.

PHB 173, Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores, Skills
Each ability covers a broad range of capabilities, including skills that a character or a monster can be proficient in. A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual's proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect.

Skills Ability Scores are innate capability, training and competence.
Proficiency is focus on one subset of the things an ability score covers.

If two characters have the same bonus, one has high natural talent and training (ability score) and the other lower natural talent and training overall, but a focus on a subset of the things the ability score covers that brings them up to par.

But you still need to know how to do something to make a check. If a Wizard has never Parkoured, they don't get to use their Strength 8 to make a Strength (Athletics) check to outdo the level 5 Barbarian who has a lot, and has Strength 18 and Athletics proficiency for +7 bonus. The Wizard just automatically fails, because they don't know how to Parkour.
(Example intentionally chosen to reverse the normal one given.)

[Skrum]

It's how the PHB defines them.

PHB 173, Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores, Ability Scores and Modifiers
Each of a creature's abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score
is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature's training and competence in activities related to that ability.

PHB 173, Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores, Skills
Each ability covers a broad range of capabilities, including skills that a character or a monster can be proficient in. A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual's proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect.

Skills are innate capability, training and competence.
Proficiency is focus on one subset of the things an ability score covers.

If two characters have the same bonus, one has high natural talent and training (ability score) and the other lower natiral talent and training overall, but a focus on a subset of the things the ability score covers that brings them up to par.

Interesting. I have no particular answer to that other than to say I disagree with both you and the book lol.

[greenstone]

Alternative suggestion: aiding another requires a character actually doing something that helps.

Two characters who both know nwature topics can help each other remember an obscure fact - it's a process called brainstorming. A character who doesn't know anything about the topic can't help brainstorm.

A character who knows nothing about disarming traps can help another, by doing something like holding a lantern steady or holding a trapdoor half open.

If the players want help then they have to describe what the character is doing to help and how it helps.

Begin and end with the fiction.

[Anymage]

Do you really want to be the wizard with +10 to their arcana checks to get Will Hunting'd by the barb because they rolled an 19 and you rolled a 3? No, that feels terrible.

Proficiency should mean something *in itself,* not just be a ~15% more likely to succeed.

The dice outweighing the bonus is very much by design. If you want the expert to succeed, just let them have it without involving a dice roll and the odds of luck getting in your way.

Then again, the wizard getting Will Hunting'd by the barbarian carries a built in assumption that the results of a failed check are nothing happening. It's been known for a while that letting there be a chance of things stopping dead based on a dice roll is just asking murphy's law to kick in. Either give the expert success without rolling, or have a way to fail forward prepared because 1/20 isn't really all that rare.

[Tanarii]

Two characters who both know nwature topics can help each other remember an obscure fact - it's a process called brainstorming. A character who doesn't know anything about the topic can't help brainstorm.
My personal experiences lead me to making these group checks. Because they'll argue about who is right until you have a majority consensus (right or wrong).

Of course, I'm a contrarian and habitually argue. So any discussion I'm involved in is likely to go that way. :smallamused:

[H_H_F_F]

"Sorry buddy, there's no way I can just hold this rope to help you climb up this rock. I'm not a trained athlete, so holding something is too hard for me."

No, this is stupid.

Okay, so, if a position seems completely stupid, consider the possibility that it's not your interlocutor's position :smalltongue:

Having a rope certainly helps, and it is certainly not the help action. Consider this: "You're facing an almost completely smooth wall, at a slight angle towards you - basically impossible to climb. DC 30. Luckily, there's a rope dangling all the way, so you have advantage - if you'd have Strength 20, and a +5 athletic proficiency, you'd now have a 9.75% chance of success rather than 5%. Unfortunately, you're only level 12, so despite being trained in athletics and being as strong as humanly possible, you can't climb this rope - since the wall behind it would be too difficult to climb if it wasn't there."

Now that's stupid :smalltongue:

Dangling a rope isn't the help action - it doesn't give advantage, it completely changes the task at hand. It used to be DC 30, now it's DC 5-10. In fact, if someone holds or ties the rope, I may ask them to make some check, depending on the situation. This just isn't what the help action is - you might've well have said "I can't hand you a note with the answer to your question, since I'm not a scholar on this subject". If you have a note with the answer, you don't need to make the same check.

What would the help action look like for scaling such a wall? Well, maybe there isn't one. The PHB clearly states that some actions gain no advantage from help.

It wouldn't be "stand on my shoulders" if the wall is 10 meters, that's pretty irrelevant, and if it's 3, it changes the nature of the task completely. In the absolute majority of cases I'd say it's irrelevant, a DC change, or a change to the amount of times the check needs to be succeeded. Sometimes I'd say "that's advantage", but I feel like that's only in very specific circumstances.

It wouldn't be dangling from the top with arms open wide, so you can jump and grab them - that'd involve the jump rules, and is just a different check, again.

It might though, look like someone observing the wall, giving you some support at the beginning and tips as you climb, analyzing possible paths over the wall with you before you begin to ascent. To me, that's the classic case of giving you advantage rather than saying the task itself has changed.

And yeah - if you're not a trained athlete, you're not going to be able to efficiently do that.

Now, obviously, there'll be exceptions, as noted earlier. That's why the OP clearly states that this is meant as a hard guideline, rather than an ironclad ruling. But I think I've made my point.


Alternative suggestion: aiding another requires a character actually doing something that helps.

Two characters who both know nature topics can help each other remember an obscure fact - it's a process called brainstorming. A character who doesn't know anything about the topic can't help brainstorm.

A character who knows nothing about disarming traps can help another, by doing something like holding a lantern steady or holding a trapdoor half open.

If the players want help then they have to describe what the character is doing to help and how it helps.

Begin and end with the fiction.

You see, to me that's exactly why the houserule is there - to help avoid the slippery slope of allowing stuff like "I hold the torch, advantage".

Do you give someone advantage if they work in direct daylight? I'd assume no, and that's always going to be better than a steady lamp. Maybe you should say "nowhere to put your lamp, disadvantage" and then a buddy can say "I'll hold it" - but if you don't give advantage on any old thieve's tool check because it's light outside, you shouldn't give it now. Do you give someone advantage for saying "I hold the door up with my backpack?" come on.

In fact, you ended up choosing an analogue to literally the one and only example of a prohibited help action in the PHB.
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 thieve's tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can't help another character in that task.

You're saying you'd allow advantage for someone helping as much as a stick would, for an action (thieve's tool check) that the PHB explicitly states is an illegal help action choice. IMO, it's both silly in-narrative to make that so impactful, and against RAW and RAI. To me, that's what happens when you get used to "just describe how you help, and I'll let you give advantage", and why a general stringent ruling - you can only help with proficiency - is preferable.


So my first thought is: That's not what proficiency represents.

Proficiency represents focus on one subset of what an ability score provides. Not training/knowledge. The base ability score can already represent training/knowledge.

Example: A Wizard with Int 18 and no Arcana skill proficiency and an EK with Int 14 and Arcana proficiency may be equally trained on a question of Arcana Lore. Similarly a Barbarian with Str 18 and no Athletics proficiency is very likely to be equally trained in Athletics maneuvers as a Rogue with Str 10 and Athletics (Expertise).

Skills Ability Scores are innate capability, training and competence.
Proficiency is focus on one subset of the things an ability score covers.

If two characters have the same bonus, one has high natural talent and training (ability score) and the other lower natural talent and training overall, but a focus on a subset of the things the ability score covers that brings them up to par.

But you still need to know how to do something to make a check. If a Wizard has never Parkoured, they don't get to use their Strength 8 to make a Strength (Athletics) check to outdo the level 5 Barbarian who has a lot, and has Strength 18 and Athletics proficiency for +7 bonus. The Wizard just automatically fails, because they don't know how to Parkour.
(Example intentionally chosen to reverse the normal one given.)


--------

Secondly:

To Help, you have to be capable of helping. You have to have the training/knowledge, and you have to do something that helps. This may require establishing the state-of-the-character first.

Just like to make an Int check to remember something, you need to have known it in the first place. This may require establishing the state-of-the-character first. You don't make an Intelligence (Lore) check to determine if you ever learned something, to determine the state-of-the-character. You make an Intelligence (Lore) check to recall something you knew in the heat of the moment. Or you take ten times as long, and automatically succeed.


Forgive me for rearranging your comments into one, seemed like an easier way of approaching them.

So, I think we have a semantic disagreement on what "Raw ability", "training", and "focus" mean in this context.

Strength 18 isn't "I'm just naturally strong, never worked out a day in my life". Deadlifting isn't athletics - it's a strength check. But that doesn't mean it doesn't require technique, training, competence. If you have 14 strength, you work out, and are good at it, and have tried a bunch of stuff at least once.

You can't have intelligence 18 if you sat in a dark room your whole life, but are naturally a supergenius. That's not what Int is. Int 18 also means you're very curious, you love learning, and you've had ample opportunity to exercise that love.

However, it doesn't mean you're an academic - in whatever sense that word applies to your society. You don't have systematic, broad, in depth understanding in a field of study - unless you do. And that relates to the "state-of-the-character".

That state, in my personal opinion, is already established in the system - by stuff like background, class, and proficiency choices. You want to know if your character has given any serious effort to juggling before? Check your proficiencies. You want to know if your character ever gained systemic knowledge on theology, and could be of actual help to a scholar of theology (rather than being able to come up with a lot of snippets and unorganized knowledge gained as an enthused amateur)? Check your proficiencies. Has your character gotten a systemic education? Well, yeah, I have the sage background, that's exactly what that means. And the system represents that with this background giving you the appropriate proficiencies.

Do you have acrobatics proficiency? congrats, you know how to parkour. Do you have 16 Dex? Yeah, you're an extremely agile dude with very precise movements, and you've done things that have a lot in common with parkour, so you have a good shot - but you're not going to be able to walk me through it, because you're not actually a parkourist.

[KorvinStarmast]

Dangling a rope isn't the help action - it doesn't give advantage, it completely changes the task at hand. It used to be DC 30, now it's DC 5-10. In fact, if someone holds or ties the rope, I may ask them to make some check, depending on the situation. I'd like to pull this bit out. This is, to me, more important than the harping on numbers in discussions about ability/skill checks. Wont' go further than to agree .

The PHB clearly states that some actions gain no advantage from help. True. Depends on the situation.

As to strength: gymnasts are strong, and agile. That's not an either or deal. (Likewise with dancers(ballet) and acrobats).

Int 18 also means you're very curious, you love learning, and you've had ample opportunity to exercise that love. And you have a good memory.

However, it doesn't mean you're an academic - in whatever sense that word applies to your society.
Thank you! :smallbiggrin:


Do you have acrobatics proficiency? congrats, you know how to parkour. Do you have 16 Dex? Yeah, you're an extremely agile dude with very precise movements, and you've done things that have a lot in common with parkour, so you have a good shot - but you're not going to be able to walk me through it, because you're not actually a parkourist. I generally see where you are coming from, and I find myself in agreement with your parkour example. (With that said, Second Story Work and a few of the Monk abilities are what strike me as "parkour skills" out of the box, but there's a lot of room to work there).

FWIW, I rarely allow acrobatics checks to sub for athletics checks, but for avoiding a grapple I do.

[Tanarii]

Forgive me for rearranging your comments into one, seemed like an easier way of approaching them.Forgiven in this case, it was very helpful. Unfortunately you removed the PHB rules in the process, which are very important. Because they're directly relevant to the fact that: Ability scores include training, proficiency does not automatically equate to training.


So, I think we have a semantic disagreement on what "Raw ability", "training", and "focus" mean in this context.

Strength 18 isn't "I'm just naturally strong, never worked out a day in my life". Deadlifting isn't athletics - it's a strength check. But that doesn't mean it doesn't require technique, training, competence. If you have 14 strength, you work out, and are good at it, and have tried a bunch of stuff at least once.

You can't have intelligence 18 if you sat in a dark room your whole life, but are naturally a supergenius. That's not what Int is. Int 18 also means you're very curious, you love learning, and you've had ample opportunity to exercise that love.

However, it doesn't mean you're an academic - in whatever sense that word applies to your society. You don't have systematic, broad, in depths understanding in a field of study - unless you do. And that relates to the "state-of-the-character". Agreed with your sentiment, but you've missed something in your final conclusion. Neither does proficiency mean you're an academic. Or even specially trained. It's just a focus. No special reason given. It could be divine providence (Clerics), experience, study, or it could just mean a subset of the things covered by a specific ability score you're not as bad at as the rest of the things that ability score represents*. So gating by proficiency is never justified.

------
*edit: Specific example of this: A character who with Int 8 and Investigation may be considered to be uneducated, but perfectly normal deductive reasoning capabilities. It's not that they're trained at Investigation/deductive thinking. It's that they're normal at that, and particularly uneducated on Lores. Meanwhile the Wizard/EK/AT with Int 16+ may well have received training in Investigation/deductive thinking along with all Lores, even though they're not proficient in Investigation or Lores.
------


That state, in my personal opinion, is already established in the system - by stuff like background, class, and proficiency choices.
Disagree. Background and Class may or may not imply specific character history, but proficiency vs non-proficiency doesn't mean trained vs not trained. Regardless, this stuff is established by the individual character history.

[H_H_F_F]

Forgiven in this case, it was very helpful. Unfortunately you removed the PHB rules in the process, which are very important. Because they're directly relevant to the fact that: Ability scores include training, proficiency does not automatically equate to training.

Agreed with your sentiment, but you've missed something in your final conclusion. Neither does proficiency mean you're an academic. Or even specially trained. It's just a focus. No special reason given. It could be divine providence (Clerics), experience, study, or it could just mean a subset of the things covered by a specific ability score you're not as bad at as the rest of the things that ability score represents*. So gating by proficiency is never justified.

------
*edit: Specific example of this: A character who with Int 8 and Investigation may be considered to be uneducated, but perfectly normal deductive reasoning capabilities. It's not that they're trained at Investigation/deductive thinking. It's that they're normal at that, and particularly uneducated on Lores. Meanwhile the Wizard/EK/AT with Int 16+ may well have received training in Investigation/deductive thinking along with all Lores, even though they're not proficient in Investigation or Lores.
------


Disagree. Background and Class may or may not imply specific character history, but proficiency vs non-proficiency doesn't mean trained vs not trained. Regardless, this stuff is established by the individual character history.

I feel like that interpretation really runs against what the phb says. I'll again emphasize that I think we read "training" vs "focus" differently, but saying someone with proficiency in investigation hasn't at all focused on investagation is weird to me. Sure, the pure numbers can represent something like that, and I wouldn't be opposed to a player who wanted to play it like that, in a low level campaign - but the very fact that his deductive reasoning will keep improving with level, that he is said to have focused on it, that he is said to be proficient in it - those really rule that interpretation out as a faithful reading of the rules, in my opinion.

To get back to what's at hand: I don't think someone with int 20 has studied history more than someone with int 10 and history expertise. I think he has a better shot at making a history check because of a combination of natural ability and training leading to him having far superior recall, due to being able to make connections more easily, his memory being better. Having a mind palace requires training, and to me, that is exactly the sort of training that Int 20 gestures at.

It is reasonable, in my mind, to say that the person with the sytemic knowledge can help guide someone else closer to the answer - even if the curious generalist savant with a memory palace might have a better chance of recalling a particular piece of trivia on their own.

[Slipjig]

Do you really want to be the wizard with +10 to their arcana checks to get Will Hunting'd by the barb because they rolled an 19 and you rolled a 3? No, that feels terrible.

Actually, I find these moments hilarious. It's equally funny when the schlubby wizard suddenly scrambles up a wall in an emergency.
And it can also be fun to come up with an explanation as to WHY the Barbarian knows this particular fact.

But yes, any time someone wants to take the Help action, I think it's completely reasonable to ask, "How are you helping?", and reject silly answers. Something like, "I keep pressure on the wound, freeing up her hands" might allow an untrained character to Help on a medicine check.

[KorvinStarmast]

Actually, I find these moments hilarious. It's equally funny when the schlubby wizard suddenly scrambles up a wall in an emergency.

And it can also be fun to come up with an explanation as to WHY the Barbarian knows this particular fact. I am with you on this. When my Warlock with the 8 wisdom rolls the nat 20 on the perception check, and nobody else cracks a 12, it's kind of cool to be the one who noticed X snice usually, he's in WTF? mode.

[Tanarii]

I feel like that interpretation really runs against what the phb says.
The PHB is very clear. Ability score includes both natural ability and training in all aspects the ability covers, and proficiency includes a focus in one subset.

So that tells us two things:
- a DM can't gate by proficiency on the assumption ability score lacks training.
- a DM can't gate by proficiency on the assumption proficiency must be training.

That's two reasons a DM can't gate by proficiency if they're trying to gate for training, based on the PHB. It must be done by the character specific details on what they're trained or not trained on.

Now if a DM told us at the beginning they were going to run as a default assumption that proficiency and proficiency alone = training unless the player tells them otherwise at the start ... fine. I'd consider it a house rule, and I'd take it into consideration when creating my character, and I'd call out then where my character was different. As opposed to thinking about it on the fly when training or lack of it became a relevant discussion as part of a check. (Edit: or making a call-back to something already established about my character as part of table play.)

[H_H_F_F]

The PHB is very clear. Ability score includes both natural ability and training in all aspects the ability covers, and proficiency includes a focus in one subset.

So that tells us two things:
- a DM can't gate by proficiency on the assumption ability score lacks training.
- a DM can't gate by proficiency on the assumption proficiency must be training.

That's two reasons a DM can't gate by proficiency if they're trying to gate for training, based on the PHB. It must be done by the character specific details on what they're trained or not trained on.

Now if a DM told us at the beginning they were going to run as a default assumption that proficiency and proficiency alone = training unless the player tells them otherwise at the start ... fine. I'd consider it a house rule, and I'd take it into consideration when creating my character, and I'd call out then where my character was different. As opposed to thinking about it on the fly when training or lack of it became a relevant discussion as part of a check. (Edit: or making a call-back to something already established about my character as part of table play.)

Since you start by quoting a single sentence of mine, I'll try to restate what I meant by it (since it doesn't pertain to our discussion here).

You posed an interpretation when low int + investegation proficiency could represent a lack of education with someone who's otherwise of average intellectual capacity. I disagree, since that is (IMO) as far as can be from "a focus on that subject". Saying "proficiency doesn't have to mean any particular interest or focus on the subject" doesn't work. That's what I meant by the sentence you quoted, and most of its following paragraph.

Anyway, I feel like we're slightly walking in circles - I reiterate "I think we read the word 'training' differently here", and you push forwards.

Let me ask you this, though: in your estmimation, if I have 20 strength, and say my character used to swim in the lake, I don't need to have athletics proficiency to represent the fact that I'm an excellent, trained swimmer, right? It's not just that I'm in great shape and know how to swim, so I can swim very fast - it's that I'm fully a trained swimmer. On the other hand, the dude with Strength 6 and athletics proficiency isn't - it's just that he's an averagely fit person who sucks at swinging fists and at feats of strength. It's not that he's a focused athlete that happens to have a weak baseline.

If that's the correct reading, though, the variant rule for skills with different abilities doesn't make a lick of sense. Let's say both of our dudes here have the same Con score (12). The variant rule tells us that dude 1 (who, by your view, is specifically a trained swimmer) would roll with +1 for a long-range swim, while dude 2 (who, by your view, is far less trained in swimming) would get a +3. That's nonsensical, obviously. Both have the same tenacity, but one is a better trained swimmer - and so he loses?

By my reading, though, of what "training" and "focus" mean on this context, it makes perfect sense. Dude 1 is in top shape, very trained, and in a short burst he could blow dude 2, who's weak, out of the water (Ha! Pun unintended, but welcomed). However, in a long-stretch, given that they both have the same tenacity, dude 2's systemic, real understanding of swimming would give him the upper hand.

The fact that on the very same topic in the phb there's a rule that'd have nonsensical results with your understanding of the word "training" here, and makes perfect sense with mine, is to me an indication that my interpretation might be more faithful to the text.

[NontheistCleric]

I think it's important to remember that the numbers are just an abstraction. What matters is the effect they have in the game world and how the narrative frames them.

So it's possible the 20 Strength guy excels at cutting through the water efficiently and can probably go further in less time or overcome turbulent waters more easily, but the other one is more well-rounded and can do endurance swimming better.

[H_H_F_F]

I think it's important to remember that the numbers are just an abstraction. What matters is the effect they have in the game world and how the narrative frames them.

So it's possible the 20 Strength guy excels at cutting through the water efficiently and can probably go further in less time or overcome turbulent waters more easily, but the other one is more well-rounded and can do endurance swimming better.

Yeah. And if they're trying to impress others with fancy swimming, they might roll athletics-Cha, and he'd be better at that too. And if they're trying to write a paper about sport injuries, they might roll athletics-Int, and hems be better at that too. Etc.

You get the point - being a more well rounded swimmer to that extent is the reasoning behind my suggested houserule, and my claims as to what proficiency represents.

Edit:

To clarify, I'm not disagreeing with you here at all - I agree completely. That was precisely my point - that despite the word "training" perhaps misleading here, high Strength simply doesn't represent the methodical, generalized approach to athletics that proficiency does.

[NontheistCleric]

Well, yes, but a particular type of training doesn't necessarily translate into others, so I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the 20 Strength swimmer is trained, but simply in a more specialized way.


Yeah. And if they're trying to impress others with fancy swimming, they might roll athletics-Cha, and he'd be better at that too. And if they're trying to write a paper about sport injuries, they might roll athletics-Int, and hems be better at that too. Etc.
I can't say I agree with these examples. Learning to swim prettily is clearly covered by Performance (and in situations where the performance might require strength or endurance, it would be Strength (Performance) or Endurance (Performance)), while medical knowledge is covered by Medicine, or possibly Nature.

[Parabola]

I would never play it that attribute = training and if that's a houserule so be it. Otherwise it is impossible for a character to have above average intelligence without also being automatically 'trained' in arcana, history, investigation, nature and religion. That just doesn't seem a sensible way of looking at it to me.

[Mastikator]

I would never play it that attribute = training and if that's a houserule so be it. Otherwise it is impossible for a character to have above average intelligence without also being automatically 'trained' in arcana, history, investigation, nature and religion. That just doesn't seem a sensible way of looking at it to me.

I prefer to think of it as guidelines, high ability score can represent natural talent, supernatural gift or training or a combination of any. The player decides.

[H_H_F_F]

Well, yes, but a particular type of training doesn't necessarily translate into others, so I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the 20 Strength swimmer is trained, but simply in a more specialized way.


I can't say I agree with these examples. Learning to swim prettily is clearly covered by Performance (and in situations where the performance might require strength or endurance, it would be Strength (Performance) or Endurance (Performance)), while medical knowledge is covered by Medicine, or possibly Nature.

Sport injury being medicine - fair. How about building an exercise plan for someone? Whatever, it's a minor point.

Generally though, I feel that if we went for the interpretation that ability=specialized and proficiency=generalized, we're bending the language so far out of shape it's not even recognizable any more. "Focus", remember?

I'll also say that under this interpretation, I think my reading that it's reasonable to say only the guy with the generalized approach is the one that can provide aid to others makes sense.

Again, I'm fine with using the numbers to fluff it this way, play how you wish - and if you can make the numbers make sense, great. But it's not what the text implies. The argument against my proposition was that my reading of proficiency is wrong, and I'd say I've sufficiently showed that not to be the case.

[NontheistCleric]

I don't think you're wrong about proficiency being training, but it doesn't always have to be. There is also language that implies that ability score modifiers can constitute training.

That is why I say the numbers matter only insofar as they influence the game. Why shouldn't the person with only a high ability score in a relevant area be able to provide assistance? The paradigm of specialized vs generalized can also be tipped in the other direction.

For example, maybe the arcane trickster never actually studied magic theory that hard, but her Int modifier means she has the kind of brain that just naturally accumulates facts here and there, so she can contribute to a discussion on nature that the sorcerer who did study magic can't.

Or maybe the monk doesn't know formal medicine, but years of training and beating up people means someone with their general perceptiveness has gained some understanding of how bodies work.

Maybe elves actually do practice spotting stuff all the time, or maybe their eyes are just naturally keen. The numbers and fluff are what really matter in the world of the game. If Sherlock Holmes is just some guy who has a natural 18 Int and no Investigation proficiency somehow, while all of Scotland Yard are proficient but have 6 Int, the result is still that he is the investigative genius in the world of the story and they are ineffectual.

Trying to say it must be either training or natural ability on either side just isn't helpful.

[Aimeryan]

The mechanics and the abstraction don't match here; don't overthink it. It is very gamefied and as such is best treated in the following manner: 'What makes for more fun?'

Consider that you have Proficiency in Nature. You are stuck in an internal prison complex (maybe its buried 10km deep) full of machinery and covering a vast artificially created habitation area. There are no plants or wildlife. You get gruel sent through pipes. You're stuck for half a year there, encountering various challenges of a specifically non-Nature related manner and level up. After 4 levels your Proficiency bonus has increased to all skills that have it. Make that make sense now for Nature.

Likewise, you're a level 3 Wizard with 8 Strength. You level up to Wizard level 4; you take the Strength ASI to get to 10 Strength (the average).
Now go back; you're a level 3 Wizard. You multiclass into Fighter. You gain two more levels of Fighter while fighting using a two-handed weapon. You don't increase in Strength.
What mechanically represented you gaining more Strength in the first case but absolutely WAS NOT POSSIBLE in the second case? I don't mean you character chose not to, I mean literally was not possible.

Again, the mechanics are just there for gameplay purposes; they aren't tied into things the character is actually doing.

[KorvinStarmast]

I prefer to think of it as guidelines, high ability score can represent natural talent, supernatural gift or training or a combination of any. The player decides. "Why can't it be both"

Trying to say it must be either training or natural ability on either side just isn't helpful. Indeed, it can be both. :smallsmile:

[JLandan]

Players Handbook, Chapter 7: Using Ability Score / Ability Checks / Working Together

Working Together
Sometimes two or more characters team up to attempt a task. The character who’s leading the effort — or the one with the highest ability modifier — can make an ability check with advantage, reflecting the help provided by the other characters. In combat, this requires the Help action (see chapter 9, “Combat”).

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.

The Players Handbook clearly spells out that a DM may rule whether proficiency is or is not required on a case-by-case basis; also whether help can even be provided or not. This is not a house rule.

[JellyPooga]

Begin and end with the fiction.This is all that needs be said. Pretty much applies to, well, every thing in any RPG I suppose.

[Tanarii]

I would never play it that attribute = training and if that's a houserule so be it. Otherwise it is impossible for a character to have above average intelligence without also being automatically 'trained' in arcana, history, investigation, nature and religion. That just doesn't seem a sensible way of looking at it to me.
It's attribute = some mix of natural talent and training.

And that's a needed definition. Because for some folks, the starting score is the natural talent, and applying an ASI can only be seen as training. In the case of Int, in all five skills plus other things not covered by the skill.

But it also has the added benefit that for others, it frees things up to define the initial stat as being a bit of both.

Conversely, proficiency is defined = focus.

This is more a freeing thing than a required thing. It frees folks up to define the source as something other than training. e.g. in the case of Clerics, Druids, Warlocks, or Paladins, the player might want to define it as granted capability. Or just not being as bad in one subset of what an ability covers than all the other things it covers.

So when a DM decides to gate something by proficiency, what they're really doing is artificially restricting a players definition of the character just so they can make a simpler one time ruling, rather than having to rule on a case by case basis.

[Zhorn]

I'm gonna have to agree with many of the posters here, this feels like an annoying restriction.
Makes sense in some areas, makes less sense in others.

It the ultimate goal is to just prevent the constant dogpile of someone always giving another advantage on every single roll, it sounds like the same issue I have with Guidance being called out constantly with no reasoning as to what it is doing or how it is helping. Not against players having it, just not a fan of its lack of context.
Same goes for aiding another to provide advantage; not being against the cooperation aspect, but not wanting the roll play to be completely devoid of role play.

"I assist" "sure, just say how you're assisting?"
"I cast Guidance" "ok, what is your guidance?"

Most of the time instead of blocking those options out, I make a point to my players that I will lower the DC if their reasoning how how they are executing a thing makes sense tot he challenge at hand. They can still grant advantage/guidance, but it'll be more beneficial if they can rationalize it. Similarly, I also let them know that DCs might increase if what they are doing doesn't supply a narrative layer, or their method sounds more like a hinderance than helping.

"I go to pick the lock"
"I assist"
"I cast Guidance"

vs

"I go to pick the lock"
"I assist; when some of the lock's pins have been cleared, I hold those tools in place so PC1 can tackle the others without them falling loose"
"I cast Guidance by pointing out how PC2 can keep their elbow's clear of PC1's line of sight"

In the case of the second, neither of the players helping have noted anything they requires proficiency on their end, but are giving reasons as to how they can help.

[NontheistCleric]

To be fair on the Guidance point: It's literally magic, not giving really good advice. So I don't think it's unreasonable to just let people do it whenever they can, without having to justify it beyond 'it's my arcane power/divine blessing/connection to the universe etc. at work'.

It's actually a lot more restrictive than some people make out. It's a concentration spell, so unless two or more people have it, you only get one at a time–and that's assuming the caster doesn't have better things to do with their concentration. It's obviously a spell being cast, so barring Subtle Spell, in most social situations or stealth scenarios, it's liable to cause more harm than good. It's touch range, so you won't necessarily be able to help the party member stuck across a chasm or something.

Most importantly, it's only +1d4, when all is said and done.

[Parabola]

It's attribute = some mix of natural talent and training.

And that's a needed definition. Because for some folks, the starting score is the natural talent, and applying an ASI can only be seen as training. In the case of Int, in all five skills plus other things not covered by the skill.

But it also has the added benefit that for others, it frees things up to define the initial stat as being a bit of both.

Conversely, proficiency is defined = focus.

This is more a freeing thing than a required thing. It frees folks up to define the source as something other than training. e.g. in the case of Clerics, Druids, Warlocks, or Paladins, the player might want to define it as granted capability. Or just not being as bad in one subset of what an ability covers than all the other things it covers.

So when a DM decides to gate something by proficiency, what they're really doing is artificially restricting a players definition of the character just so they can make a simpler one time ruling, rather than having to rule on a case by case basis.

I'm happy with the idea that proficiency could be granted by divine or arcane means alongside more mundane training. Similarly divine or arcane influence could be used as an explanation for a very high attribute score. But to my mind that doesn't change at all that attribute = raw ability, proficiency = specific training. I'm not saying other ways of looking at it are wrong but this is what makes sense to me.

[Zhorn]

@NontheistCleric; Oh no, I get it.
I was just using Guidance as my comparison point.
The sole reason one would want to implement the suggested houserule as per OP would be to add some layer of control over just having a bonus be present for every skill roll
Helping is advantage
Guidance is +1d4
if they are active all the time then it's less about being a bonus and more just the baseline for making these checks is just raised across the entire board.
As distasteful as OP's suggested rule of requiring proficiency is; it still does achieve the goal of making the bonus of getting help feel like an actual bonus, because it's not just always present.
Guidance was the same for me. A player is just constantly screaming "I cast Guidance" as so every skill check (outside of combat) has a 1d4 boost. Always. If there was a resource expenditure or some limit then it would feel appropriate. But no it's a free cantrip, just being a number boost with no other requirement just makes it one of those numbers-bloat issues. not fond of it.
Added to that both helping and Guidance (repeating) have that issue of being lazy roll-play without role-play.

I could have gone down the route of banning the spell, but that avoids the underlying issue without fixing it. If someone pops up later doing the same thing, then the player behaviour just repeats.
So I adjust DCs based on input instead.
It's not a perfect solution, but it is more targeted to the problem I had with it. A bonus constantly applied with no player engagement.
Adding an extra sentence is a very minor thing, but it at the very least incentivizes players to supply narrative input into their actions to suit the scenario, a behaviour which I find preferable to just shouting "I cast Guidance".

As for the "it's only +1d4" counter, I disagree with the stance. A plus 1 is only a plus 1 until it is normalized into being the new baseline. then it's no longer considered, and so the next plus 1 (which now collectively is really a plus 2) doesn't sounds that big of a deal either... and the cycle keeps repeating over and over. Powercreep may not start with a Vorpal Sword scale bonus at level 1, but they all get there in the end if you don't pay attention to those small increasing building up.

[NontheistCleric]

I see your point, but I don't really agree that Guidance sets a new baseline or is applied with no player engagement.

In a vacuum, it might seem that way, but functionally, I find it's far from the case.

Recently, I played a cleric with Guidance. The rest of the party consisted of a gishy sort of necromancer wizard, a beastmaster ranger, and a squire (noble NPC with a fighter level). When the chips were really down, we often had to strategize about which of multiple checks or multiple people actually needed the bonus, or it simply wasn't feasible because the cleric wasn't next to the person performing the check (like when part of the party had to make Athletics checks to jump a gap, which the squire actually failed to disastrous effect), the cleric was concentrating on something else, the cleric had something better to do with his action (like attacking or making his own ability checks in a time crunch), or it was simply a situation where the social negatives of being seen casting a spell would greatly outweigh any benefit from the spell. We certainly didn't get the bonus on every roll.

Yes, shouting 'I cast Guidance' constantly would have been incredibly obnoxious. At most, I said it in a normal tone, and sometimes the other players simply assumed that I could give it to them (and once or twice I corrected them regarding the limiting factors). A player shouting disruptively isn't a problem with any spell, it's a problem with the player.

Basically, it played out as though the cleric had a situationally useful class feature, but in situations where it actually mattered, some other action tended to be the optimal one, and I think that's in line with what a cantrip should be.

Being only +1d4 also mattered. It meant that Guidance could only–most of the time–make a check that might just have failed into a success. Significant failures or overwhelming successes proceeded as they would have without Guidance.

Possibly this analysis would be slightly different if every single member of the party had had Guidance, but then, that would be a unique kind of party all on its own.

[Zhorn]

In a vacuum, it might seem that way, but functionally, I find it's far from the case.
Your experience is different to my experience
Yes, our tables are different.
I was using Guidance as my comparison point to OPs scenario, not as an "every table plays the exact way as this".

[NontheistCleric]

Fair enough. Still, I do feel like the mechanics in question have enough limiting factors on them already–and to me, it's actually kind of a benefit that they can be applied fairly often. It makes the party feel a lot more like a party instead of a collection of individuals, because it makes them think about how they can effectively contribute to each others' success, and it makes them feel it more when they are apart.

[Lunali]

Not a fan of the rule. 90% of the time in real life if I need help with something, the person helping doesn't need to know anything about what I'm doing, they just need to do something simple that's hard for me to do at the same time. Someone with no skill in performance is entirely capable of starting a round of applause at the end. Someone without proficiency in animal handling may not have a lot of experience, but it's entirely possible for them to be helpful in calming a horse so leave whether they are or not up to the dice.

Instead go with the rule that someone has to actually be able to help.

For arcana/religion/history/nature I wouldn't generally allow others to help as it's usually a roll about whether you remember something or not. However, I have a house rule for stuff like that so instead of everyone rolling for it to see who knows something, the person with the highest modifier rolls with advantage and that roll represents the whole party's knowledge, which may then be handed out in pieces to show what each person remembers.

[H_H_F_F]

As a general response to everyone saying there should be some case-by-case element here: note what I said in the OP: "this isn't meant to be a hard ruling."

My proposition is that you can't help without proficiency generally, and anything else would be an exception to hte rule. Say, an ability like second-story work, speaking a relevant language, etc.

I think that this does help remove the feeling that all you need to do is come up with a description, and voila - advantage. I think that this generalized approach leads to PCs just needing to find excuses in order to get the advantage, rather than the help action arising naturally from the character's capabilities. Instead of "ooh! I can help with that!" it's "Someone needs to provide the help action right now, this narrative seems excusable".

And again, I think it's n coincidence that this, of all examples, came up again:




"I go to pick the lock"
"I assist; when some of the lock's pins have been cleared, I hold those tools in place so PC1 can tackle the others without them falling loose"

In the case of the second, neither of the players helping have noted anything they requires proficiency on their end, but are giving reasons as to how they can help.

Again, literally illegal. The only case when the PHB clearly defines a help action requiring proficiency is picking a lock. If you let players help a lockpicking check like this, that's a houserule.

And that's fine, you're allowed to use houserules - but for the reasons I gave above, I feel that A) such a houserule loses more than it gains as it pertains to the actual playing experience, and B) is obviously far less in line with RAI than what I'm suggesting.

[NontheistCleric]

As a general response to everyone saying there should be some case-by-case element here: note what I said in the OP: "this isn't meant to be a hard ruling."

My proposition is that you can't help without proficiency generally, and anything else would be an exception to hte rule. Say, an ability like second-story work, speaking a relevant language, etc.

I think that this does help remove the feeling that all you need to do is come up with a description, and voila - advantage. I think that this generalized approach leads to PCs just needing to find excuses in order to get the advantage, rather than the help action arising naturally from the character's capabilities. Instead of "ooh! I can help with that!" it's "Someone needs to provide the help action right now, this narrative seems excusable".

Personally, I think the best course of action is just to firmly establish DM supremacy. This is more a player issue than a rules one. People can try anything (and I'd argue that the game benefits from them feeling like they can at least try anything), but if the DM does not find their action to be an actually reasonably helpful one, no means no, and there should be no serious argument after that.

That way there's no need to quibble about what kinds of numbers are allowed to mean this or that (after all, 'capabilities' can mean many things beyond proficiency), while also discouraging players from 'gaming the system'.

[stoutstien]

Honestly this comes down to two different problems I have nothing to do with the help action.

The first is non-actionable ability checks like knowledge recall or otherwise deciding to see if you know something in some way or just poorly implemented.

The second is having a situation where there is a clear single path forward with an ability checks gate therefore it makes perfect sense for the party to want the dog pile on it.

[Unoriginal]

Okay, title is overstating the case a bit - this isn't meant to be a hard ruling, just a suggestion on handling aiding another with a skill.

If you're not proficient in nature, there's no way for you to help the wizard trying to identify this weird bug you've found. If you're not proficient in performance, you're not going to be able to enhance the bard's routine. If you've never seen a horse before, you won't be of much help to the ranger currently trying to calm one down.

You need to be able to provide some actual benefit to grant someone advantage. "I'll get some books for you" doesn't cut it, when your character has no scholarly tendencies. I might say you can cut down the research time by 1/10 that way, but if I was in a library trying to hunt down the source for some claim about the supposed interregnum between Aurelian and Tacitus's regimes, my sister who has no academic background is going to be of little help.

So no, your animal companion can't aid you with your studies of arcane mysteries. Find someone with the appropriate training.

Thing is, you're not making a Nature check or an Arcane check. You're making an Intelligence check, and applying any proficiency deemed relevant by the DM.

Helping can comes in many form, from organizing the workspace and holding the toolbox to doing the work itself on one's lonesome for a time while the main contributor is taking a breather.

That is enough to provide help by 5e's standards, same way that an owl can provide Help to a Demon Prince during combat, despite the difference in their respective combat mights (to say nothing of their cosmic mights).

The only way I would consider "you need proficiency to help" to make sense is if the situation was "you need proficiency to even attempt the check".

But I struggle to think of a situation where someone with 8 in the relevant stat and the proficiency would be allowed to make the test, while someone with 20 in the stat and withput the proficiency wouldn't.

EDIT: picking locks is, to my knowledge, the only time 5e goes for "need proficiency to attempt it". I'm not sure of the reasoning, given I don't think proficiency is required for other kinds of mechanical devices.

[Pex]

I can understand the desire. It is annoying for the DM when players rush to say they're helping so another player gets Advantage for every roll made for anything at anytime. However, with this rule in place hardly any helping will ever be done because PCs don't get a lot of skill proficiencies, and that's not a good thing either. Except for tool use, proficiency is not a permission slip to do something. Any player can try anything, not just the PC with highest plus number to the roll. The 8 ST character can climb a tree, and the 8 CH character can talk to the king.

What I do as DM. The player who makes the suggestion to do something does it. If the 8 CH character player says to try a particular diplomatic tactic, he's the one making the Persuasion roll. If the 8 IN character player says someone should search the area, he's the one making the Investigation roll. I'm fine with a PC suggesting another PC do something, such as the monk reminding the rogue to search for traps with the rogue making the check even though it was the monk's idea. Context matters. If someone wants to help he needs to say how, and I decide if it's reasonable. Sometimes it's yes, sometimes no. I also don't allow piggybacking. If the rogue rolls low for searching for traps I do not allow others to check making their own rolls. The rogue found no trap so there is none as far the party is concerned. Sometimes I call for someone, anyone to make a roll, and then I'll allow the players to let the PC with the highest plus number to make the roll even with advantage when it makes sense the party is helping. It's never never in the party's favor when it comes to the math.

It's not a hard coded rule. It's the DM doing his job. It's DM adjudication that is supposed to happen in running the game.

[Zhorn]

Again, literally illegal. The only case when the PHB clearly defines a help action requiring proficiency is picking a lock. If you let players help a lockpicking check like this, that's a houserule.
Poorly chosen thing on my end to use as an example, granted.
But to be fair, I was talking about having the requirement be on the narrative level. Whether they had proficiency or not, the requirement being they give a reason for their helping making sense.
For the sake of discussion we can say all parties involved are proficient, and the point still plays out the same.

[Tanarii]

Again, literally illegal. The only case when the PHB clearly defines a help action requiring proficiency is picking a lock. If you let players help a lockpicking check like this, that's a houserule.
The text in Help is an error. You do not need Thieves tools proficiency to attempt to pick a lock. Being proficient in them just lets you add your bonus, per description of the tool (and tools in general), and as usual for a tool.

What you do need is to actually have the tool to do something you couldn't otherwise do, like pick a lock. Proficient or not, you need the tools to do the thing that requires tools.

And the latter may be reasonable justification for not being able to help. If there's only one set of tools, and two people cannot reasonable share the one set of tools, and there's no way to help without tools ... sure then they can't help.

[H_H_F_F]

The text in Help is an error. You do not need Thieves tools proficiency to attempt to pick a lock. Being proficient in them just lets you add your bonus, per description of the tool (and tools in general), and as usual for a tool.

What you do need is to actually have the tool to do something you couldn't otherwise do, like pick a lock. Proficient or not, you need the tools to do the thing that requires tools.

And the latter may be reasonable justification for not being able to help. If there's only one set of tools, and two people cannot reasonable share the one set of tools, and there's no way to help without tools ... sure then they can't help.

So, I think we're probably just going to remain in disagreement. It doesn't say you need two sets of tools, or that you can't help someone engaged in this task. It says someone who knows their way around thieve's tools (which is expressed through proficiency, not high dex) can help - and others can't.

The alternate ability scores for skills variant rule presupposes an interpretation of proficiency that supports mine, and the explicit rules in the help section elaborate a view that supports mine.

I'll say that in my view, preferring to ignore or struggle with all of this context instead of choosing a somewhat less broad reading on the context of the word "training" in one section is a less productive and less faithful way to approach the text.


Everyone, I suspect we're not going to come to an agreement on whether or not this guideline is conducive to a positive play experience and to a more meaningful role for the help check and character abilities. I'd like to thank y'all for your contributions and thoughts on this discussion. I feel like I'm just going in circles at this point, so I'm out - but obviously, feel free to continue discussing the subject on this thread.

[Tanarii]

My point is the statement about proficiency for thieves tools in the help section is wrong - it conflicts with the rules on tools. It needs errata to match the explicit rules for tools: a character needs them to take undertake some activities, and if the character is proficient they get their proficiency bonus when doing so.

Edit: I agree at this point we're unlikely to convince each other. I'm firmly in the camp that proficiency shouldn't be used to gate training by the DM, and discussion in this thread has just reinforced that. It can and probably even for many characters often does (at the players choice) represent additional training on top of any (if any) already represented by the base ability score. But IMO that's a detail specific to the character, not a generalization.

But surely we can keep the discussion going in circles for another ten pages! :smallamused:

[Unoriginal]

My point is the statement about proficiency for thieves tools in the help section is wrong - it conflicts with the rules on tools. It needs errata to match the explicit rules for tools: a character needs them to take undertake some activities, and if the character is proficient they get their proficiency bonus when doing so.

Edit: I agree at this point we're unlikely to convince each other. I'm firmly in the camp that proficiency shouldn't be used to gate training by the DM, and discussion in this thread has just reinforced that. It can and probably even for many characters often does (at the players choice) represent additional training on top of any (if any) already represented by the base ability score. But IMO that's a detail specific to the character, not a generalization.

But surely we can keep the discussion going in circles for another ten pages! :smallamused:

The specific rule regarding lockpick states that proficiency is required to do it, which takes precedent over the general tool use rule.

That makes it a particular poor example for the Help rule, in consequence

I agree it seems to be an artifact from when "proficiency is required to even try" was the prevalent mindset, and that the game works better when you don't include it.

[Tanarii]

The specific rule regarding lockpick states that proficiency is required to do it, which takes precedent over the general tool use rule.
No it doesn't. I just did a full search of the PHB and DMG for "pick a lock" and "open lock" and the rules are under tools and Dex checks for the former, and for the latter says "see Thieves Tools".

Dex checks says they can be used to pick a lock, Tools / Thieves says (twice) you need to them pick a lock, but proficiency gives a bonus. Proficiency isn't required unless you've got a specific lock that says otherwise.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No it doesn't. I just did a full search of the PHB and DMG for "pick a lock" and "open lock" and the rules are under tools and Dex checks for the former, and for the latter says "see Thieves Tools".

Dex checks says they can be used to pick a lock, Tools / Thieves says (twice) you need to them pick a lock, but proficiency gives a bonus. Proficiency isn't required unless you've got a specific lock that says otherwise.

The lock item itself says it requires proficiency. Which, I guess, only applies to that one particular item?



A key is provided with the lock. Without the key, a creature proficient with thieves' tools can pick this lock with a successful DC 15 Dexterity check. Your DM may decide that better locks are available for higher prices.

[NontheistCleric]

Technically, what it's saying is that it has a fixed DC for people with thieves' tools proficiency, not that people without that proficiency necessarily can't do it. Maybe the DC would be higher for them, or maybe it wouldn't. It's up to the DM, really.

[Marcloure]

In my game, helping requires a check using any appropriate skill. The DC is 10 or half the original skill DC, whichever is higher. Failing the help check by more than 5 grants disadvantage.

The fumble almost never happens, since players try to frame the help in a way to use the skills they are good at, but it's there for the rare occasion.

[Parabola]

No it doesn't. I just did a full search of the PHB and DMG for "pick a lock" and "open lock" and the rules are under tools and Dex checks for the former, and for the latter says "see Thieves Tools".

Dex checks says they can be used to pick a lock, Tools / Thieves says (twice) you need to them pick a lock, but proficiency gives a bonus. Proficiency isn't required unless you've got a specific lock that says otherwise.

Phb175 under working together:

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.

Not saying I totally agree with it but it is there.

[Tanarii]

Phb175 under working together:

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.

Not saying I totally agree with it but it is there.
Yes, that's the quote of the example being addressed, that contradicts the actual rules. The example is in error.

[Arkhios]

Huh, I had the impression this was the RAW, all along.

FWIW, I'll continue to believe it still is. Seems stupid that it isn't.

[Psyren]

The general rule is that the character must be able to attempt the task alone. That doesn't mean it prohibits anyone who lacks proficiency, but it IS left up to the DM to determine what a "task that someone can attempt alone" even is - and they have the freedom to determine that some tasks may require proficiency.

[crabwizard77]

Alternative suggestion: aiding another requires a character actually doing something that helps.

Two characters who both know nature topics can help each other remember an obscure fact - it's a process called brainstorming. A character who doesn't know anything about the topic can't help brainstorm.

A character who knows nothing about disarming traps can help another, by doing something like holding a lantern steady or holding a trapdoor half open.

If the players want help then they have to describe what the character is doing to help and how it helps.

Begin and end with the fiction.

This is the way most of my DMs play. You do not have to have proficiency to be able to help, but you cannot just say "I use the Help action." It has worked out pretty well for us so far

[DarknessEternal]

This is the way most of my DMs play. You do not have to have proficiency to be able to help, but you cannot just say "I use the Help action." It has worked out pretty well for us so far

No it isn't. Most DMs play by the rules. Those rules say any character can attempt an ability check and proficiencies are never required.

[crabwizard77]

No it isn't. Most DMs play by the rules. Those rules say any character can attempt an ability check and proficiencies are never required.

My post was saying the way that most of my DMs play. I agree with you that any character can attempt an ability check and proficiencies are never required. The thing I was saying is that the DMs that I play with allow anybody to help with a check, but only if they can say how they are helping.

[Psyren]

No it isn't. Most DMs play by the rules. Those rules say any character can attempt an ability check and proficiencies are never required.

Not quite - the rules say that any character can attempt anything, but the DM decides if a check accompanies your attempt or not. I can say my character wants to try jumping to the moon all I want, but the DM telling me not to bother rolling Athletics is well within their rights to do so.

[Doug Lampert]

EDIT: picking locks is, to my knowledge, the only time 5e goes for "need proficiency to attempt it". I'm not sure of the reasoning, given I don't think proficiency is required for other kinds of mechanical devices.

Because only thieves can pick locks, it's their role in the party. That's why they have a % chance of picking locks like Gygax intended (roll low on d100).

Alternately, it's because the people writing the rule have no freeking clue how easy it is to open most locked doors with even minimal tools and training, and they then compound this ignorance by thinking that midieveloid locks in D&D land are any good at all compared to modern locks in our world.

But yeah, it's a stupid rule.

[Psyren]

Alternately, it's because the people writing the rule have no freeking clue how easy it is to open most locked doors with even minimal tools and training, and they then compound this ignorance by thinking that midieveloid locks in D&D land are any good at all compared to modern locks in our world

You just acknowledged the necessity of training, however minimized - that's what proficiency represents.

[H_H_F_F]

You just acknowledged the necessity of training, however minimized - that's what proficiency represents.

Here we go again...

[GloatingSwine]

Two characters who both know nwature topics can help each other remember an obscure fact - it's a process called brainstorming. A character who doesn't know anything about the topic can't help brainstorm.

Yes they can.

Shall we do it? Shall we do the Lord of the Rings example? Of course we shall! It's what we do.

When Gandalf is trying to work out how to enter the mines of Moria he is prompted to the correct answer by Merry, a character who doesn't know anything. No training, no relevant experience, a very limited worldview due to his upbringing, but him asking the "dumb" question is what prompts the actual expert to get to the correct answer.

[Psyren]

Yes they can.

Shall we do it? Shall we do the Lord of the Rings example? Of course we shall! It's what we do.

When Gandalf is trying to work out how to enter the mines of Moria he is prompted to the correct answer by Merry, a character who doesn't know anything. No training, no relevant experience, a very limited worldview due to his upbringing, but him asking the "dumb" question is what prompts the actual expert to get to the correct answer.

Gandalf was working out a riddle though (one he didn't even realize was one); it's not like Merry was helping him recall deep Istari lore. I'd view that example as closer to Insight/Wisdom than knowledge/Intelligence, and not relying on any special training or even substantial talent; just the kind of down-to-earth guileless thinking hobbits are known for.

[Doug Lampert]

You just acknowledged the necessity of training, however minimized - that's what proficiency represents.

No, I noted that most people can do it with minimal training. The first time I PERSONALLY did it was with no training at all. Most /= ALL, and it is only your incorrect assumption that the exceptions are people who also need training.