Hi all,
I have been running 5e for several months now before we all got wise to the Help action. I am a little dismayed at how the rules are written and not see anyone complain about them. Surely, by the lack of traffic on the topic, I must be doing something wrong.
Use a HELP action grants advantage to a roll for someone else. Seems simple enough…..
1. Fighter helps Ranger look for tracks. Ranger gets advantage (+5 if you believe the math threads) on the roll. NO PROBLEM. I like it.
2. Wizard owl familiar helps wizard spot a secret door. Wizard gets advantage on perception. Fine, I get it.
3. Squirrel Familiar helps Fighter pickup a 300lbs boulder. Fighter gets advanatage???? What?
Combat HELP with familiar seems unbalanced as well. I get that an owl or something can offer a distraction, but if you look at conditions that grant advantage, a lizard sent out from the wizard offers the same combat advantage as the foe being paralyzed, stunned, prone, etc.
Fighter: I will trip the Orc. (has to make a opposed check to pull it off, by the way )
Wizard: I will cast sleep and then you can attack the Orc.
Arcane Trickster: Don’t worry about it, I have a familiar lizard, it does the same thing.
Both in Combat and Out, the RAW does not make sense to me. What am I missing?
First of all, you're the DM. If something doesn't make sense to you, sit down with your players and discuss it. Let them know you aren't going to let the squirrel help lift the boulder.
While the lizard helping in combat is a little odd, think of it as the lizard climbing on the orcs face, or crawling down it's pants. 
Better yet, have the player describe what it's doing and how it's helping.
Remember that a familiar helping their master is putting their life on the line - most monsters can kill them with a single hit. In my experience familiars in combat don't last long enough to make a huge difference, although it does mean an attack was used up for the familiar.
There are a few rules in 5E that are kind of funky, but you're going to hit that in any game. You either role with it, set boundaries on when and how it works, or (last resort) ban it. But whatever you do, talk to your players and explain why and listen to their suggestions.
Silver0711 wrote:
The rules are there to help you play a fun game, not to force you to do 'silly' things. Don't let the rules get in your way.
I think the catch to help is the person trying to help needs to have the ability to actually help. For instance a rogue is trying to pick a lock and the fighter in his party wants to help. If the fighter has no proficiency in lock picking then he can't help, he just doesn't have the ability to do so. Now with the fighter having a squirrel help him move a 300 boulder, I'd say "Ok sure, but before we do that I want you to repeat after me. I (player's name) look like a fool because I think a squirrel can actually help me move this 300lb. boulder and I need to stop meta gaming."
This is pretty much similar to how assists work in 3.5. When ever a player says he wants to assist on a roll, I ask them how they want to help. Unless they come up with a good explanation, I will not grant them any bonus. Examples:
Assisting with a lock pick: Usually I will rule that another character will only get in the way, unless they assist by offering some light.
Assisting with lifting something heavy: This is perfectly fine, two can obviously lift more than one.
Assisting with a search: Perfectly fine, but then I assume that each player searches a different part of the room.
Assisting with a disable device: If the players are disabling a trap, I might rule that the other player can hold back a trigger mechanism, while the first player cuts a wire. But I may just ask them for specifics, or rule that they need to do an extra concentration check to keep a steady hand. There are of course a lot of risks involved with two players interacting with the same trap. It would be a great way to lose a finger.
Assisting with a spot or listen: Not okay, everyone has their own spot and listen. But if someone spots something that the other players missed, he could of course point it out to them. If the object in question is very hard to see, I may ask for a second spot check, with a bonus due to the other player pointing it out.
Assisting with a bluff or diplomacy: I would ask for specifics, but of course one player can support what the other player claims. Of course as soon as they start contradicting each other, the game is up. Here it matters a lot just what the players say to an npc. I would have them play it out.
Thanks for the replies all. Great to have an active community!
I think, in general, the HELP action is on the way out for our game or I need to lay down some ground rules. If you have the skill or can actually perform the task, then you can aid others, depending on the action taken (see Imaculata comments above), change to 3.5 rules (gotta make a roll vs DC, then add a bonus to main task taker. this is to go after higher DCs that might be out of reach by one party memeber), or change the bonus to a +2 (shocking I know!)
The case in point in our game, player using owl familiar to swoop in and distract opponent while player attacks at advantage. It makes sense. So, player has a good reason, and not just saying “using HELP action”. However, advantage for paralyzed and advantage for a bird flapping around the Ogre is the same bonus ( roughly +5). I just don’t see it. Instead of just saying no, perhaps it works the first time (every combat b/c you know it will be used), but after you get stuck with 3d6 sneak attack dagger to the back, the non-attacking flapping hoot owl does not seem that distracting any more.
Then again, if I say, if it cannot perform the action, then it can’t help, then familiars cannot HELP attack because it can’t attack anyway.
Silver0711 wrote:
I agree. Player decisions and actions are more important than the system.
Help is intentionally left very broad (so that the DM can apply their judgment). But I'd be reluctant to remove options from players simply because I dislike the mathematical effect. Mostly because for me : people > system.
iserith wrote: