Potential houserule: aiding another requires proficiency.

[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.