Potential houserule: aiding another requires proficiency.

[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.

[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!

[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!

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.