# Sharp shooter/Great Weapon Mastery



## GMforPowergamers

These two feats are normally seen as the two best in the game (I guess only if you use weapons and they are ranged or two handed but still)

they took away the part that most people talk about though... -5 to hit for +10 to damage. 

Sharp shooter no longer has a damage bonus
Great weapon mastery is once per round on a hit add your prof to damage.

I like this nerf.  I don't know if everyone will agree. It is a hit to weapon users (but I hope one that shows the want them to be more then just best damage in game)


----------



## rooneg

This is a great nerf. The feats now give useful abilities, but aren't so head and shoulders above the rest that if you want to be a damage dealing warrior you're basically required to build for one of them.


----------



## Baumi

The update to the feats are great. Even the Charger is good now 

And the light Armor Feat make so many Multiclass-Combos unnessesary


----------



## Sacrosanct

I like it.  I look at it like this.  If you have a feat/ability/spell/whatever that everyone says is miles above all others, then it's broken and needs to be nerfed.  If you have a feat/spell/ability/whatever that is a de-facto mandatory choice, then it's probably too powerful.


----------



## TwoSix

It's overall a good change.  Although I do think a "trade accuracy for more damage" feature would make sense as part of the combat rules.


----------



## Amrûnril

I think the Sharpshooter change also makes the feat a lot more flavorful. Now that the range and cover effects are the main point of the feat, it really feels like it's about sharpshooting, whereas the 2014 version was a much more generic "being good with ranged weapons" feat. The firing in melee effect does counteract that change a bit, though.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

TwoSix said:


> It's overall a good change.  Although I do think a "trade accuracy for more damage" feature would make sense as part of the combat rules.




Yes. A general -5/+5 or add prof bonus to damage instead of attack would just work well for all kinds of weapon users.


----------



## FrogReaver

IMO. All the feat change will do is push people toward multiclass and casters.

Well built multiclasses were already nearly as powerful as the weapon feats and usually more versatile, usually they just came online a few levels later. Say level 7-8 instead of 4-5.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

The nerfs are great. But they were the only thing making martial characters notable. So now WotC would have to actually buff martials, and... yeah...


----------



## Bill Zebub

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> The nerfs are great. But they were the only thing making martial characters notable. So now WotC would have to actually buff martials, and... yeah...




I'm actually wondering if they give the -5/+10 thing as a medium/high level class ability to everybody in the Warrior group.  Maybe by PB instead of fixed value.  E.g., -2/+4 at levels 1-4, etc.


----------



## Neonchameleon

They also took away crossbow expert/single hand crossbow which I'm pretty sure was unintentional (and risibly broken when combined with SS) and Polearm Master with a one handed weapon. And rogues making offturn sneak attacks and using weapon cantrips.


----------



## Ancalagon

I feel that I need more time to read this, because there are a _lot_ of moving parts.  (edit: thus this is just an impression, I could be wrong!)

But it really takes a bite out of the archery style of combat (I don't mean the game term, but the general meaning).  Because of archery style (now I mean the feat) +2 to hit helped compensate for the -5 of SS, it made archery _extremely good_ at DPS.  With the nerf of _both_ SS and crossbow expert, archers will not be so dominant perhaps?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ancalagon said:


> I feel that I need more time to read this, because there are a _lot_ of moving parts.
> 
> But it really takes a bite out of the archery style of combat (I don't mean the game term, but the general meaning).  Because of archery style (now I mean the feat) +2 to hit helped compensate for the -5 of SS, it made archery _extremely good_ at DPS.  With the nerf of _both_ SS and crossbow expert, archers will not be so dominant perhaps?




God I hope so.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

The +2 in Archery style was likely there to counter-act the shooting into melee penalty when playing without feats..? Feats obviously change that math, since you can just get rid of cover altogether.

Archery is always the easier mode, so it should be less rewarding. I just wish it did something notably different from melee, besides not having to walk to targets.


----------



## Charlaquin

Neonchameleon said:


> They also took away crossbow expert/single hand crossbow which I'm pretty sure was unintentional (and risibly broken when combined with SS) and Polearm Master with a one handed weapon. And rogues making offturn sneak attacks and using weapon cantrips.



Assuming hand crossbows are still light, you shouldn’t need the feat to dual-wield them now with the new wording of the light property (note that it doesn’t specify that they have to be melee attacks). The Feat just allows you now to add your prof bonus to the damage of the second attack when you do so.


----------



## squibbles

Neonchameleon said:


> They also took away crossbow expert/single hand crossbow which I'm pretty sure was unintentional (and risibly broken when combined with SS) and Polearm Master with a one handed weapon. And rogues making offturn sneak attacks and using weapon cantrips.



Ya, it seems like a lot of features which are powerful in ways that the designers likely did not intend have been nerfed.

Simultaneously, a lot of very weak feats have been buffed, mostly by making them half feats.

It seems to me that this is both good and bad. Good in the sense that it's nice to have a wide variety of equally powerful options. But it could also be bad if martials now no longer have anything that is as good as GWM/PAM and CE/SS and don't get other features that compensate for that loss of power.

I realize it's kind of a bomb-throwing move to bring this up, but won't that just further weaken martials relative to casters? The rogue, for example, seems to me to be less strong overall--though I may have misunderstood elements of it on my first readthrough. Meanwhile, the Bard and (particularly) the Ranger seem to have gotten more spells prepared than they used to have spells known.

--edit--
Just to clarify:

Good riddance to GWM/PAM and CE/SS bananas damage numbers, I just hope that something more is added to counterbalance their removal over and above the improvements to, say, charger, durable, etc.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

I really like these.  I will take them.  They are flavorful and good…but not too good.

And no extra calculation to get more damage. (-5?  Nope, just a hit.  Seems smooth and quick),


----------



## Horwath

Only feats that I do not like are Fighting styles.

Why are those "full" feats?
Is if because of archery?
Then balance it out.
Maybe +proficiency bonus to damage on ranged weapons would be better than +2 to attack with a +1 ASI??
also GW fighting style is still horrible. Even as half feat I would not take it. Ever.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Charlaquin said:


> Assuming hand crossbows are still light, you shouldn’t need the feat to dual-wield them now with the new wording of the light property (note that it doesn’t specify that they have to be melee attacks). The Feat just allows you now to add your prof bonus to the damage of the second attack when you do so.



The problem I'm talking about isn't dual wielding crossbows with the loading issues involved. It was that in the current rules you get the bonus action attack from just using a single hand crossbow with no weapon in your other hand. You then combine this hand crossbow attack (with no penalty in melee thanks to Crossbow Expert) with the Sharpshooter feat, the +2 from Archery style offsetting the -5 from Sharpshooter - and you get three really powerful (+10 damage) and not that inaccurate attacks per turn. It's easy to use, ranged, and very hard hitting.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Horwath said:


> Only feats that I do not like are Fighting styles.
> 
> Why are those "full" feats?



They don't give +1 to stat because they are lv1 feats. I don't think you're ever supposed to pick them with feat picks...

Why are they listed in feats, then? Uhhhhhh wizards


----------



## Horwath

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> They don't give +1 to stat because they are lv1 feats. I don't think you're ever supposed to pick them with feat picks...
> 
> Why are they listed in feats, then? Uhhhhhh wizards



then make them lvl 4+ feats.

Or just bite the bullet and say; pick any feat at 1st level.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Horwath said:


> then make them lvl 4+ feats.



They won't do that, because they're giving them away at levels 1-2 to warrior-likes...


----------



## Horwath

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> They won't do that, because they're giving them away at levels 1-2 to warrior-likes...



it's again a feat that no one will take.
Even archery style, why would you take +2 attack when you can take +2 dex?
no reason.
12th level maybe?
99% of campaigns are over. And I would rather take +2 Con or important secondary ability.
you balance the game for early levels.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Horwath said:


> it's again a feat that no one will take.



Don't take it, you're not meant to. You pick it up by being warrior-y.


----------



## Horwath

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Don't take it, you're not meant to. You pick it up by being warrior-y.



what is the point then of making feats that no one will take?
padding page count?
we did that in 2014.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Horwath said:


> what is the point then of making feats that no one will take?
> padding page count?
> we did that in 2014.



Again, since they are explicitly a sub-category of feat, that suggests some classes will get a free one of these in addition to normal feats. Putting them here saves having to spell it all out in four places.


----------



## TwoSix

Bill Zebub said:


> Again, since they are explicitly a sub-category of feat, that suggests some classes will get a free one of these in addition to normal feats. Putting them here saves having to spell it all out in four places.



Plus it gives warriors the freedom to take them if they want to.  

Now, I don't think it's a perfect solution, I would prefer to see a level 4 feat that gives a fighting style and a +1, or 2 additional fighting styles.  But I don't disagree with their logic of making them feats rather than a class-specific menu of options, since they're a feature shared among multiple classes.


----------



## HammerMan

Bill Zebub said:


> Again, since they are explicitly a sub-category of feat, that suggests some classes will get a free one of these in addition to normal feats. Putting them here saves having to spell it all out in four places.



Yeah I think fighting styles need some rebalancing.  I hope they ask about them.


----------



## Horwath

TwoSix said:


> Plus it gives warriors the freedom to take them if they want to.
> 
> Now, I don't think it's a perfect solution, I would prefer to see a level 4 feat that gives a fighting style and a +1, or 2 additional fighting styles.  But I don't disagree with their logic of making them feats rather than a class-specific menu of options, since they're a feature shared among multiple classes.



2 styles as a full-feat could work.

there is no ASIs, so it's good for 1st level, 2 styles might not synergies too much, and it would not be a garbage level of feat.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Horwath said:


> what is the point then of making feats that no one will take?



It's not a feat to TAKE, it's a fighting style you get FOR FREE for being a warrior-y class. I don't know why they chose to list them in the middle of the feats. Likely just because they could not bring themselves to make a separate section that would only be relevant to fighting men - this way they get one more page for spells!


----------



## Neonchameleon

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> They don't give +1 to stat because they are lv1 feats. I don't think you're ever supposed to pick them with feat picks...
> 
> Why are they listed in feats, then? Uhhhhhh wizards



Because they are level 1 feats - and it might be (depending on timing) possible for a fighter to use their background feat to take one.


----------



## Sacrosanct

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> It's not a feat to TAKE, it's a fighting style you get FOR FREE for being a warrior-y class. I don't know why they chose to list them in the middle of the feats. Likely just because they could not bring themselves to make a separate section that would only be relevant to fighting men - this way they get one more page for spells!






Neonchameleon said:


> Because they are level 1 feats - and it might be (depending on timing) possible for a fighter to use their background feat to take one.



Jeremy has said that warriors can choose additional fighting styles by using their ASIs just like any other feats.  That's why they are feats now.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Horwath said:


> what is the point then of making feats that no one will take?
> padding page count?
> we did that in 2014.



People will take them. And making feats is the _literal opposite_ of padding the page count. It means that when you have fighters, rangers, paladins, and various subclasses able to take a fighting style you can just say "Fighting style feat" rather than copy and paste everything into the class and possibly subclass.

Does this make this slight anti-padding worthwhile? Probably not. But it's not padding.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Sacrosanct said:


> Jeremy has said that warriors can choose additional fighting styles by using their ASIs just like any other feats.  That's why they are feats now.



What Jeremy hasn't added is that (unless something else is going on) _these are trap choices_. They don't give you an ASI and only the most powerful of them give you the equivalent of a feat. I mean which would you take between the protector fighting style or Sentinel even without the ASI.

Seriously, these are the equivalent of the 3.X Toughness feat if they are meant to be bought with ASIs


----------



## Horwath

Neonchameleon said:


> What Jeremy hasn't added is that (unless something else is going on) _these are trap choices_. They don't give you an ASI and only the most powerful of them give you the equivalent of a feat. I mean which would you take between the protector fighting style or Sentinel even without the ASI.
> 
> Seriously, these are the equivalent of the 3.X Toughness feat if they are meant to be bought with ASIs



no style is equivalent of a feat.

archery comes close, but that is another problem.
I would say that archery is 3/4 of a feat, rest of them are around 1/2 feat, give or take and GW style is 1/4th or ever worse.


----------



## Mort

Most of the feat changes I like but:

Why would anyone take the new protection style?

Impose a -2 to 1 attack roll at the cost of a reaction? They could, at least have made it impose -proficiency bonus, so it has some bite beyond the first few levels. I get that -2 aligns with the shield bonus, but it's only to 1 attack and costing a reaction isn't a small thing.


----------



## Horwath

Mort said:


> Most of the feat changes I like but:
> 
> Why would anyone take the new protection style?
> 
> Impose a -2 to 1 attack roll at the cost of a reaction? They could, at least have made it impose -proficiency bonus, so it has some bite beyond the first few levels. I get that -2 aligns with the shield bonus, but it's only to 1 attack and costing a reaction isn't a small thing.



with bounded accuracy it makes sense. and it's an equivalent of a shield.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Mort said:


> Most of the feat changes I like but:
> 
> Why would anyone take the new protection style?
> 
> Impose a -2 to 1 attack roll at the cost of a reaction? They could, at least have made it impose -proficiency bonus, so it has some bite beyond the first few levels. I get that -2 aligns with the shield bonus, but it's only to 1 attack and costing a reaction isn't a small thing.



It's actually IMO an upgrade over the old Protection Style (which imposed disadvantage) because it's completely reliable and so can effectively give multiple allies +2AC across multiple attacks; it only needs to be triggered once.

Of course Protection Style was always bad.


----------



## Mort

Horwath said:


> with bounded accuracy it makes sense. and it's an equivalent of a shield.




It's not though. 

A shield provides a +2 to all attacks, almost all of the time.

This provides a +2 against 1 attack and only at the cost of the warrior's reaction. That's WAY too big a sacrifice as levels get higher, attack bonuses get significant  and multiple attacks become common. 

I had a player who had the current version of this style, and disadvantage  against 1 attack was ok, but above level 4 a -2 with these restrictions is not enough.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Horwath said:


> no style is equivalent of a feat.
> 
> archery comes close, but that is another problem.
> I would say that archery is 3/4 of a feat, rest of them are around 1/2 feat, give or take and GW style is 1/4th or ever worse.



Yes but if you have STR/DEX 20 they can be worth it. Particularly for Fighter that have more feat slots to play with.
They could also be very useful for classes that do not otherwise get a fighting style, to pick as their level one feat. A rogue or a Bladesinger might want it.

Edit: nevermind I forgot about the "Warrior" prerequisites for Fighting Style.


----------



## Mort

Neonchameleon said:


> It's actually IMO an upgrade over the old Protection Style (which imposed disadvantage) because it's completely reliable and so can effectively give multiple allies +2AC across multiple attacks; it only needs to be triggered once.



Disadvantage is better than -2 the great majority of the time, especially if a nat 20 is still an automatic hit.

and how are you getting across multiple attacks?

across multiple rounds, yes. But never more then once in a round. And costing a reaction is huge.



Neonchameleon said:


> Of course Protection Style was always bad.




That's the prevailing thought. They could have improved instead of nerfed it even further.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Mort said:


> This provides a +2 against 1 attack and only at the cost of the warrior's reaction. That's WAY too big a sacrifice as levels get higher, attack bonuses get significant  and multiple attacks become common.



You're not actually seeing the impact. You choose to pop the -2 _after knowing that the attack hits_. That means that it might as well be -2 to all attacks until one in the round lands in that sweet spot where it changes the outcome. You make that one miss and only if there are more in the turn are they not at effective -2


----------



## TwoSix

Neonchameleon said:


> You're not actually seeing the impact. You choose to pop the -2 _after knowing that the attack hits_. That means that it might as well be -2 to all attacks until one in the round lands in that sweet spot where it changes the outcome. You make that one miss and only if there are more in the turn are they not at effective -2



My only thing is that it's weird it gives a -2, since 5e is usually so sparing with -X or +X bonuses/penalties.  Granting half cover would be more in line with how 5e usually does things.

I absolutely agree with you that being able to activate it after the result is known makes the feature MUCH stronger.


----------



## Horwath

UngainlyTitan said:


> Yes but if you have STR/DEX 20 they can be worth it. Particularly for Fighter that have more feat slots to play with.
> They could also be very useful for classes that do not otherwise get a fighting style, to pick as their level one feat. A rogue or a Bladesinger might want it.



when you have 20 it's too little, too late.
It's about 4th level and having +4 primary mod vs +3 and a feat.

what will rogue sacrifice for FS? +2 dex? now way in hell.
yes, maybe, just maybe as 10th level feat. Even then I doubt it.


----------



## Mort

Neonchameleon said:


> You're not actually seeing the impact. You choose to pop the -2 _after knowing that the attack hits_. That means that it might as well be -2 to all attacks until one in the round lands in that sweet spot where it changes the outcome. You make that one miss and only if there are more in the turn are they not at effective -2




I did miss the "immediately after the attack roll..." part. That's actually significantly better because you'll only trigger it when it's useful. So it's an upgrade from the original. Still don't think the -2 is enough though.


----------



## Neonchameleon

UngainlyTitan said:


> Yes but if you have STR/DEX 20 they can be worth it. Particularly for Fighter that have more feat slots to play with.
> They could also be very useful for classes that do not otherwise get a fighting style, to pick as their level one feat. A rogue or a Bladesinger might want it.



OK. With the _possible_ exception of archery style which of them do you think is worth it.

I mean I'm not taking Protective over Sentinel or Great Weapon Fighter over Great Weapon Master for example. I'm not even taking them if the stat point goes to a secondary stat.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

TwoSix said:


> My only thing is that it's weird it gives a -2, since 5e is usually so sparing with -X or +X bonuses/penalties.  Granting half cover would be more in line



I suppose they didn't want for people to have to check whether someone's already in half cover before they can protect them.

I wonder if it would be cleaner to say 'you make the attack miss if it isn't 2 or more over the target AC'. Same thing.


----------



## TwoSix

Neonchameleon said:


> OK. With the _possible_ exception of archery style which of them do you think is worth it.
> 
> I mean I'm not taking Protective over Sentinel or Great Weapon Fighter over Great Weapon Master for example. I'm not even taking them if the stat point goes to a secondary stat.



I'm OK with Ranger only getting 1 since it's not technically a Warrior class, but the other Warrior classes should get multiple Fighting Styles early on.  At least 3.  They're not synergistic, other than Defense.  Make Warriors versatile again.


----------



## TwoSix

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> I suppose they didn't want for people to have to check whether someone's already in half cover before they can protect them.
> 
> I wonder if it was cleaner to say 'you make the attack miss if it wasn't 2 or more over the target AC'. Same thing.



Well, I think you can make the argument that the shield bonus shouldn't stack if they're already in half cover.  But I see your point.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Horwath said:


> when you have 20 it's too little, too late.
> It's about 4th level and having +4 primary mod vs +3 and a feat.
> 
> what will rogue sacrifice for FS? +2 dex? now way in hell.
> yes, maybe, just maybe as 10th level feat. Even then I doubt it.



Which FS is the rogue going for?

And why are they putting it ahead of e.g. Skulker, Sharpshooter, Speedster, Dual Wielder (for the double dagger toss), or soemthing useful like observant or actor?

For that matter the Fighting Style feats have the prerequisite of Warrior Group - so rogues can't take them. But they almost certainly wouldn't if they could - and why does a fighter want a _second_ choice from this group?


----------



## Charlaquin

Horwath said:


> it's again a feat that no one will take.
> Even archery style, why would you take +2 attack when you can take +2 dex?



Well you can’t take +2 Dex at 1st level, so…


----------



## Charlaquin

Mort said:


> Disadvantage is better than -2 the great majority of the time, especially if a nat 20 is still an automatic hit.



The only time it’s not better is when -2 would change a hit into a miss. Which is also the only time you would use this version of Protection. That’s the point, they made it more narrow, but also made it so that you always know if it will be useful before you have to decide to use it.


----------



## Lojaan

I think they need to choose which feat to put the "shooting an enemy within 5 feet doesn't give disadvantage" benefit into. Currently it is in both SS and CBE which is odd, particularly as CBE only gives that benefits for crossbows, and SS gives it for anything.

Good to see that they have removed the "shoot twice with a single hand crossbow" shenanigans. That always seemed like a cheese interpretation of the rules (even though later they said it was ok bizarrely). Now you need a hand crossbow in each hand and since you ignore the loading property I guess you can magically reload them without using any hands.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I don't get all this complaining about Fighting Style Feats. They're LEVEL ONE feats. You don't take them at Level 4, 8, or 12 instead of an ASI. You take them as part of your Soldier Background, or when your class gives you one for free.


----------



## Bill Zebub

FitzTheRuke said:


> I don't get all this complaining about Fighting Style Feats. They're LEVEL ONE feats. You don't take them at Level 4, 8, or 12 instead of an ASI. You take them as part of your Soldier Background, or when your class gives you one for free.




Yup. 

Tempest in a Tenser’s.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Horwath said:


> when you have 20 it's too little, too late.
> It's about 4th level and having +4 primary mod vs +3 and a feat.
> 
> what will rogue sacrifice for FS? +2 dex? now way in hell.
> yes, maybe, just maybe as 10th level feat. Even then I doubt it.



Ok I forgot about the prerequisites for Fighting Style.
I was thinking about using the initial background level one feat slot. But that is really only available to fighters, so not really available for rogue/wiz sorry about that.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Neonchameleon said:


> OK. With the _possible_ exception of archery style which of them do you think is worth it.
> 
> I mean I'm not taking Protective over Sentinel or Great Weapon Fighter over Great Weapon Master for example. I'm not even taking them if the stat point goes to a secondary stat.



Sorry, see my reply to @Howath above, I forgot about the perquisites.


----------



## Lojaan

Lojaan said:


> I think they need to choose which feat to put the "shooting an enemy within 5 feet doesn't give disadvantage" benefit into. Currently it is in both SS and CBE which is odd, particularly as CBE only gives that benefits for crossbows, and SS gives it for anything.
> 
> Good to see that they have removed the "shoot twice with a single hand crossbow" shenanigans. That always seemed like a cheese interpretation of the rules (even though later they said it was ok bizarrely). Now you need a hand crossbow in each hand and since you ignore the loading property I guess you can magically reload them without using any hands.



Actually I would change the SS benefit so it doesn't help you shooting at someone within 5 feet, but it DOES allow you to shoot into melee and your target doesn't get the benefit of cover from you trying not to hit your allies. You'd also need to highlight/confirm that shooting at an enemy who is in melee with an ally usually gets half cover. I think this is a rule but have not seen it in play.


----------



## TwoSix

FitzTheRuke said:


> I don't get all this complaining about Fighting Style Feats. They're LEVEL ONE feats. You don't take them at Level 4, 8, or 12 instead of an ASI. You take them as part of your Soldier Background, or when your class gives you one for free.



Yea, there seems to be an unspoken assumption that a feat should be a feat, but that simply isn't true in this new edition.  A level 4 feat is simply better than a level 1 feat, and a level 20 feat is much stronger than a level 4 feat.  But you're not prohibited from taking a weaker choice if you so desire, just like you can choose to learn a 1st level spell even when you have access to higher level spells.


----------



## Amrûnril

Mort said:


> I did miss the "immediately after the attack roll..." part. That's actually significantly better because you'll only trigger it when it's useful. So it's an upgrade from the original. Still don't think the -2 is enough though.



It's still a downgrade from the original if you're dealing with a single attack (possibly also if you're dealing with two or three, I haven't done the math, but presumably it depends on the original hit probability).

There's also an ease of play issue. To know whether it will be useful, you need to know both your ally's AC and the DM's exact to-hit roll. Which certainly can be handled efficiently, but it'll definitely create some back and forth if anyone isn't on top of things, or if a groups's previous habits don't mesh with these new demands.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Amrûnril said:


> It's still a downgrade from the original if you're dealing with a single attack (possibly also if you're dealing with two or three, I haven't done the math, but presumably it depends on the original hit probability).



How could it be worse at dealing with multiple attacks? Original Protection only applied to one attack, and if that was missing anyway, too bad, you gave it disadvantage already. With the new Protection, it only applies to the one attack out of three that was going to hit.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> These two feats are normally seen as the two best in the game (I guess only if you use weapons and they are ranged or two handed but still)
> 
> they took away the part that most people talk about though... -5 to hit for +10 to damage.
> 
> Sharp shooter no longer has a damage bonus
> Great weapon mastery is once per round on a hit add your prof to damage.
> 
> I like this nerf.  I don't know if everyone will agree. It is a hit to weapon users (but I hope one that shows the want them to be more then just best damage in game)



It's a good nerf, but I don't think it shows anything other than WotC has finally listened to people's complaints about them.


----------



## Micah Sweet

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> The nerfs are great. But they were the only thing making martial characters notable. So now WotC would have to actually buff martials, and... yeah...



WotC doesn't think martials need buffing.  This is obvious to me.  They're just addressing a very loud complaint.  The proud nail gets hammered down.


----------



## TwoSix

Micah Sweet said:


> WotC doesn't think martials need buffing.  This is obvious to me.  They're just addressing a very loud complaint.  The proud nail gets hammered down.



Yea.  Each individual change is fine in theory, but lowering the ceiling on martial damage while simultaneously giving casters even more versatility isn't a great look.


----------



## Horwath

TwoSix said:


> Yea.  Each individual change is fine in theory, but lowering the ceiling on martial damage while simultaneously giving casters even more versatility isn't a great look.



yeah, we need higher damage on melee weapons, especially non-finesse ones.


----------



## Mort

Amrûnril said:


> It's still a downgrade from the original if you're dealing with a single attack (possibly also if you're dealing with two or three, I haven't done the math, but presumably it depends on the original hit probability).



Yes, since disadvantage is a bigger debuff than -2. Plus Disadvantage is great Crit protection, while this is useless against a crit (unless they change the crit rules further than they have indicated).

Still, at least it's now a reliable ability - though still weak compared to an always on +2 damage or to-hit or a +1 AC.



Amrûnril said:


> There's also an ease of play issue. To know whether it will be useful, you need to know both your ally's AC and the DM's exact to-hit roll. Which certainly can be handled efficiently, but it'll definitely create some back and forth if anyone isn't on top of things, or if a groups's previous habits don't mesh with these new demands.




Maybe it's not universal, but all the groups I've seen go something like "does an 18 hit...?" And if the person says yes, work from there. Same way they handle the shield spell. So should be pretty easy to insert.


----------



## Amrûnril

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> How could it be worse at dealing with multiple attacks? Original Protection only applied to one attack, and if that was missing anyway, too bad, you gave it disadvantage already. With the new Protection, it only applies to the one attack out of three that was going to hit.




Because there's no guarantee that the successful attack(s) will be within two points of missing. The old version is wasted if disadvantage doesn't change the outcome of a single attack. The new version is wasted if -2 doesn't change the outcome of any attack. Which of the two is more likely will be very situation-dependent.


----------



## Amrûnril

Mort said:


> Maybe it's not universal, but all the groups I've seen go something like "does an 18 hit...?" And if the person says yes, work from there. Same way they handle the shield spell. So should be pretty easy to insert.



Shield's a bit easier, in that the person using it is always adding to their own armor class. To use protection with the same efficiency, a player needs to have _every _party member's AC on hand. This is definitely doable, but there are also a lot more ways to get mixed up.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> WotC doesn't think martials need buffing.  This is obvious to me.



I really hope you are wrong... that might just knock me and my friends out of D20 fantasy for a while if true.


----------



## Remathilis

Horwath said:


> what is the point then of making feats that no one will take?
> padding page count?
> we did that in 2014.



Apparently no one takes this?


Fighting Initiate
Prerequisite: Proficiency with a martial weapon
Your martial training has helped you develop a particular style of fighting. As a result, you learn one Fighting Style option of your choice from the fighter class. If you already have a style, the one you choose must be different.

Whenever you reach a level that grants the Ability Score Improvement feature, you can replace this feat's fighting style with another one from the fighter class that you don't have.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> I really hope you are wrong... that might just knock me and my friends out of D20 fantasy for a while if true.



There are plenty of 3pp options where they do take the magic/martial issue seriously.  You don't have to beg WotC for "official" rules.


----------



## Kai Lord

GMforPowergamers said:


> These two feats are normally seen as the two best in the game (I guess only if you use weapons and they are ranged or two handed but still)
> 
> they took away the part that most people talk about though... -5 to hit for +10 to damage.
> 
> Sharp shooter no longer has a damage bonus
> Great weapon mastery is once per round on a hit add your prof to damage.
> 
> I like this nerf.  I don't know if everyone will agree. It is a hit to weapon users (but I hope one that shows the want them to be more then just best damage in game)



I guess I'm in the minority but I actually don't like this change. Yes +10 damage is a big hike but at low levels the -5 often translates to missing entirely and at higher levels the +10 is offset by higher monster HP's and all the high damage ranged attacks that spellcasters get to dish out.

Thinking back to the Vox Machina Vecna fight with Vecna's high AC I seem to recall Percy having to really gamble whether Sharpshooter would allow him to land a hit or not. _shrugs_ But like I said I really seem to be in the minority on this one.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> There are plenty of 3pp options where they do take the magic/martial issue seriously.  You don't have to beg WotC for "official" rules.



If we go away from WotC it will be to Torg or Wod, not a D&D 3p


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> WotC doesn't think martials need buffing.



The proportion of your posts that (needlessly) contains a declarative statement…invariably with an unflattering slant…about WotC’s goals/beliefs/priorities continues to astonish me.


----------



## Charlaquin

Lojaan said:


> I think they need to choose which feat to put the "shooting an enemy within 5 feet doesn't give disadvantage" benefit into. Currently it is in both SS and CBE which is odd, particularly as CBE only gives that benefits for crossbows, and SS gives it for anything.
> 
> Good to see that they have removed the "shoot twice with a single hand crossbow" shenanigans. That always seemed like a cheese interpretation of the rules (even though later they said it was ok bizarrely). Now you need a hand crossbow in each hand and since you ignore the loading property I guess you can magically reload them without using any hands.



Your second paragraph is the reason CBE let you attack twice with the same hand crossbow. In the playtest version it let you dual-wield hand crossbows and there were a million questions about how you were supposed to load them. So they changed it to function the same (two hand crossbow attacks per turn) while leaving a hand unoccupied. Guess they’ve now decided to go back to the dual-wielding idea and handwaving the loading part away.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> The proportion of your posts that (needlessly) contains a declarative statement…invariably with an unflattering slant…about WotC’s goals/beliefs/priorities continues to astonish me.



Ok, _I strongly believe_ that WotC doesn't think martials need buffing.


----------



## ehren37

TwoSix said:


> I'm OK with Ranger only getting 1 since it's not technically a Warrior class, but the other Warrior classes should get multiple Fighting Styles early on.  At least 3.  They're not synergistic, other than Defense.  Make Warriors versatile again.



I've been giving fighters a fighting style every odd level and it works fine. It actually makes them the versatile combat masters they should be.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Charlaquin said:


> Guess they’ve now decided to go back to the dual-wielding idea and handwaving the loading part away.




Spring loaded magazines. And elves cock crossbows by hooking the strings over their ears. Now you know why they are pointy.


----------



## Bill Zebub

ehren37 said:


> I've been giving fighters a fighting style every odd level and it works fine. It actually makes them the versatile combat masters they should be.



That will increase their effectiveness a little bit, but other than Protection style it doesn’t actually give them anything new to do, or interesting decisions/trade-offs to make. 

That’s why I have advocated for giving them (even) more feats, but only from a select list, such as Mobile, Sentinel, Shield Master, Mage Slayer, etc. 

(Of course, now that they all come with an ASI that doesn’t work as well.)


----------



## ehren37

GMforPowergamers said:


> If we go away from WotC it will be to Torg or Wod, not a D&D 3p



I'm leaning towards PF2 myself. Decent tactical depth, they pulled casters back to the realm of sanity, and at least martials have a dedicated niche rather than wand caddy. 

6th edition looks to be more caster favoritism already. Gutting weapon damage is the wrong way to go.


----------



## Mort

ehren37 said:


> I'm leaning towards PF2 myself. Decent tactical depth, they pulled casters back to the realm of sanity, and at least martials have a dedicated niche rather than wand caddy.
> 
> 6th edition looks to be more caster favoritism already. Gutting weapon damage is the wrong way to go.




Maybe we should wait for the Warrior playtest packet before such declarations?

There are A LOT of directions they could go. Heck an easy one would be to give warriors (and only warriors) ways to get extra reactions.

And some out of combat utility.

Will have to see what THAT playtest offers.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Mort said:


> Maybe we should wait for the Warrior playtest packet before such declarations?




That’s crazy talk.


----------



## Umbran

Bill Zebub said:


> The proportion of your posts...




*Mod Note:*
Can we make this less about the speaker, and more about what it said, please?  

Thanks, all.


----------



## ehren37

Mort said:


> Maybe we should wait for the Warrior playtest packet before such declarations?
> 
> There are A LOT of directions they could go. Heck an easy one would be to give warriors (and only warriors) ways to get extra reactions.
> 
> And some out of combat utility.
> 
> Will have to see what THAT playtest offers.



You keep waiting for water to flow uphill. They've already shown that they are boosting caster versatility and nerfing martial effectiveness (SS/GWM, the rogue) as solid indication how this plays out. We also have 20+ years of WOTC caster favoritism, barring the brief moment that was 4E.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Mort said:


> Maybe we should wait for the Warrior playtest packet before such declarations?



I'm willing to wait not just for that but for the playtest to end... but I am mentioning the looks now.  I am HOPEING that with the limiting of damage they are going to give the martial characters more to do that IS NOT damage.


----------



## Mort

ehren37 said:


> You keep waiting for water to flow uphill. They've already shown that they are boosting caster versatility and nerfing martial effectiveness (SS/GWM, the rogue) as solid indication how this plays out. We also have 20+ years of WOTC caster favoritism, barring the brief moment that was 4E.




SS NEEDED some kind of nerf, GWM didn't (IMO) but again, this will depend A LOT on what warriors can do with it. Straight DPR is A way to be effective in combat, but it's (again IMO) a bit of a boring way. IF they can give a few more interesting options - I'd be happy with that.

And contrary to your assertion, there have been steps to increase martials. Tasha's had quite a few of them.

That's not to say, I'm a not disappointed into the furthering of "everything is magic..." and MOAR caster versatility - but if they can raise martials up - that'll work for me.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Mort said:


> Maybe we should wait for the Warrior playtest packet before such declarations?
> 
> There are A LOT of directions they could go. Heck an easy one would be to give warriors (and only warriors) ways to get extra reactions.
> 
> And some out of combat utility.
> 
> Will have to see what THAT playtest offers.



I suspect the fighter playtest will ultimately be the most important one.


----------



## Willie the Duck

Neonchameleon said:


> They also took away crossbow expert/single hand crossbow which I'm pretty sure was unintentional (and risibly broken when combined with SS) and Polearm Master with a one handed weapon. And rogues making offturn sneak attacks and using weapon cantrips.






squibbles said:


> It seems to me that this is both good and bad. Good in the sense that it's nice to have a wide variety of equally powerful options. But it could also be bad if martials now no longer have anything that is as good as GWM/PAM and CE/SS and don't get other features that compensate for that loss of power.
> 
> I realize it's kind of a bomb-throwing move to bring this up, but won't that just further weaken martials relative to casters? The rogue, for example, seems to me to be less strong overall--though I may have misunderstood elements of it on my first readthrough. Meanwhile, the Bard and (particularly) the Ranger seem to have gotten more spells prepared than they used to have spells known.



It's kind of an age-old question -- if category A is lessor to category B, is it ever right to go into category A and do any kind of remediation to outlier subcategories that are disproportionate within the category. In general I would say it is a good plan -- that hand-crossbow CBE/SS spammers, halberd PAM/GWM-ers, and one-handed staff/spear and shield PAMers are such disproportionate winners within the martial category doesn't really do much benefit for anyone wanting to play a martial in any other light (be it two weapon fighting, sword and shield, or whatnot). Better to bring those strategies in line with the other options, while simultaneously working on bringing playing a martial up overall (and/or casters down). 


TwoSix said:


> Yea.  Each individual change is fine in theory, but lowering the ceiling on martial damage while simultaneously giving casters even more versatility isn't a great look.






FrogReaver said:


> IMO. All the feat change will do is push people toward multiclass and casters.
> 
> Well built multiclasses were already nearly as powerful as the weapon feats and usually more versatile, usually they just came online a few levels later. Say level 7-8 instead of 4-5.



I mean, if this is the only change that happens, yes, any nerf to martials would push people towards other options. 
I am seriously curious to see what happens with casters (spells, really) and rest frequency (and fighters outside of combat, but that is another issue). If the worst of the caster spells  (or the most MC-benefiting) are re-written to not be so troublesome, and there is better guidance on addressing the 5-minute workday, these may well be stealth nerfs on casters that comes along with these culling of optimal martial tactics.



TwoSix said:


> It's overall a good change.  Although I do think a "trade accuracy for more damage" feature would make sense as part of the combat rules.






UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes. A general -5/+5 or add prof bonus to damage instead of attack would just work well for all kinds of weapon users.






Kai Lord said:


> I guess I'm in the minority but I actually don't like this change. Yes +10 damage is a big hike but at low levels the -5 often translates to missing entirely and at higher levels the +10 is offset by higher monster HP's and all the high damage ranged attacks that spellcasters get to dish out.
> 
> Thinking back to the Vox Machina Vecna fight with Vecna's high AC I seem to recall Percy having to really gamble whether Sharpshooter would allow him to land a hit or not. _shrugs_ But like I said I really seem to be in the minority on this one.



I'm wondering if they are trying to get rid of this strategy in general. SS/GWM land squarely in the 'these are reasonable benefit-offset-by-penalty _*unless *_you have lots of significant ways to make to-hit penalties not significant.' The rolled-stat elven fighter with archery fighting style and SS and 20 Dex by level 4 (and an ally who casts _bless _most combats) has a much different experience with the feat than the gwm MAD paladin taking on Vecna.


----------



## Willie the Duck

Micah Sweet said:


> I suspect the fighter playtest will ultimately be the most important one.



The fighter and where/whenever we get to see spells. Also when they address basic game rules like rest and generalized resolution (which we're starting to see, with rest interruption ideas and jumping taking an action, etc.).


----------



## TwoSix

Willie the Duck said:


> I'm wondering if they are trying to get rid of this strategy in general. SS/GWM land squarely in the 'these are reasonable benefit-offset-by-penalty _*unless *_you have lots of significant ways to make to-hit penalties not significant.' The rolled-stat elven fighter with archery fighting style and SS and 20 Dex by level 4 (and an ally who casts _bless _most combats) has a much different experience with the feat than the gwm MAD paladin taking on Vecna.



Oh, I'm pretty sure they ARE trying to get rid of it; I simply question how much of a knock-off effect it will have on overall class balance.


----------



## Kai Lord

I can't help but wonder if we're going to see a repeat of 4E creating the market for Pathfinder all over again.

Or perhaps not.  Maybe D&D is currently too big to fail.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Kai Lord said:


> I can't help but wonder if we're going to see a repeat of 4E creating the market for Pathfinder all over again.
> 
> Or perhaps not.  Maybe D&D is currently too big to fail.



WotC will secure government funding if things go too badly.


----------



## tetrasodium

Micah Sweet said:


> I suspect the fighter playtest will ultimately be the most important one.



I agree & don't think it's a coincidence that they made sure to include a caster leaning bard with the ritual magic changes.  The mage & priest stuff needs the warrior stuff to compare durability & damage/alternative effects they carry.  I'd like to see squishier mages with more of their budget spent elsewhere & think the barkskin change shows a bit about healing expectations


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Ok, _I strongly believe_ that WotC doesn't think martials need buffing.



They buffed the Light Property. A lot. Dual Wielding is no longer a bonus action tax on your character. This is really good for basically all of the Martial classes. We'll have to wait until the Warrior Class UA to see what else they change, but they clearly are working on rebalancing quite a few things in the game that they think are underpowered/overpowered (they nerfed Guidance, buffed Barkskin, buffed Rangers, both nerfed and buffed Rogues, etc).


----------



## Neonchameleon

Micah Sweet said:


> Ok, _I strongly believe_ that WotC doesn't think martials need buffing.



We've seen one martial so far - and it got both buffs and nerfs. Nerfs to the highest damage approaches with offturn attacks - and buffs to two weapon fighting and a couple of other places.

What we haven't seen is what WotC is going to do with the glorified commoners (fighter, barbarian) out of combat. Because that's where the major problems lie.


----------



## Blue

Neonchameleon said:


> The problem I'm talking about isn't dual wielding crossbows with the loading issues involved. It was that in the current rules you get the bonus action attack from just using a single hand crossbow with no weapon in your other hand. You then combine this hand crossbow attack (with no penalty in melee thanks to Crossbow Expert) with the Sharpshooter feat, the +2 from Archery style offsetting the -5 from Sharpshooter - and you get three really powerful (+10 damage) and not that inaccurate attacks per turn. It's easy to use, ranged, and very hard hitting.



At the opportunity cost of two ASIs, which if going into DEX would have been +2 to hit and +2 to damage for every attack.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Blue said:


> At the opportunity cost of two ASIs, which if going into DEX would have been +2 to hit and +2 to damage for every attack.



And also the inconvenience of not getting invited back for future games, on account of being a cheesemonger.


----------



## Blue

Neonchameleon said:


> What Jeremy hasn't added is that (unless something else is going on) _these are trap choices_. They don't give you an ASI and only the most powerful of them give you the equivalent of a feat. I mean which would you take between the protector fighting style or Sentinel even without the ASI.



This seems to be 2014 thinking - that all feats are the same power.  Looking at the 1st level feats from the first UA, none have + ability scores.  And these fighting style feats seem equivalent of other 1st level feats.

So it's an equal power level to the other 1st level feats, which is the primary thing to compare it to.  Not a trap at all.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> I suspect the fighter playtest will ultimately be the most important one.



I'm going to call it now: battle master maneuvers are going to be baked into the fighter and it will get two brand new subclasses to replace the champion and BM.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Remathilis said:


> I'm going to call it now: battle master maneuvers are going to be baked into the fighter and it will get two brand new subclasses to replace the champion and BM.



I think you're right. All they have to do for a "simple"-built champion-like fighter with maneuvers is to make the maneuvers it uses easy-to-use.


----------



## Blue

ehren37 said:


> You keep waiting for water to flow uphill. They've already shown that they are boosting caster versatility and nerfing martial effectiveness (SS/GWM, the rogue) as solid indication how this plays out. We also have 20+ years of WOTC caster favoritism, barring the brief moment that was 4E.



So your argument is "waiting for actual facts isn't worthwhile"?  Based on your assertion that you've already determined without seeing either martials or pure casters what their goals are.

Thanks, I'll wait for actual information.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Blue said:


> This seems to be 2014 thinking - that all feats are the same power.  Looking at the 1st level feats from the first UA, none have + ability scores.  And these fighting style feats seem equivalent of other 1st level feats.
> 
> So it's an equal power level to the other 1st level feats, which is the primary thing to compare it to.  Not a trap at all.



As a point of clarification I meant that _if someone was using their ASIs to take first level feats _(as apparently suggested by Jeremy Crawford) that was a trap choice. I agree that this is a clearly marked trap - it just shouldn't be suggested as a sensible option and the rules make it obvious it isn't.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Blue said:


> At the opportunity cost of two ASIs, which if going into DEX would have been +2 to hit and +2 to damage for every attack.



That depends on your level and your race. Humans (and Custom Lineage PCs) couldn't spend their bonus feat as an ASI. And most characters could only ever put two ASIs into Dex.

So if you were playing a human you could become this broken blender by 4th level at the cost of +1 to hit and damage  - and if a fighter at no such cost by L8.


----------



## Blue

Neonchameleon said:


> That depends on your level and your race. Humans (and Custom Lineage PCs) couldn't spend their bonus feat as an ASI. And most characters could only ever put two ASIs into Dex.



Sure, but vhumans got two +1s instead of a +2 and a +1, so they were already behind.

So yes, some subset of low level characters who have -1.5 to hit and damage instead of -2.



Neonchameleon said:


> So if you were playing a human you could become this broken blender by 4th level at the cost of +1 to hit and damage  - and if a fighter at no such cost by L8.



Again, the vhuman fighter 8 would still have the no +2 ability score opportunity cost, but that's pretty low.  One of the bonuses of the fighter is extra feats, just like other classes have other features.  So one race/class combo at 8th only has a small penalty compared to other characters.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Blue said:


> So your argument is "waiting for actual facts isn't worthwhile"?  Based on your assertion that you've already determined without seeing either martials or pure casters what their goals are.
> 
> Thanks, I'll wait for actual information.




It’s a shame that we can’t really have a conversation about what’s actually in the packet because every attempt to do so gets flooded with grousing about what’s not in the packet, grousing about what won’t be in future packets, grousing about everything published between 2014 and 2922, and grousing about the competence (none) and/or intentions (evil) of the designers.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Blue said:


> Sure, but vhumans got two +1s instead of a +2 and a +1, so they were already behind.



If we're going by bonuses no they weren't. A +1 was all you needed to turn your 15 into a 16 and (ignoring Custom Lineage cheese) 16 was the highest your starting stat could be. Vumans using the Standard Array who went for a full feat generally had their top three stats of 16, 14, 14. Which is exactly the same number of plusses as 17, 14, 14 or 16, 16, 13.


----------



## squibbles

Bill Zebub said:


> It’s a shame that we can’t really have a conversation about what’s actually in the packet because every attempt to do so gets flooded with grousing about what’s not in the packet, grousing about what won’t be in future packets, grousing about everything published between 2014 and 2922, and grousing about the competence (none) and/or intentions (evil) of the designers.



Wait... isn't there another word that means something like grousing that also starts with 'g' and that famously gets applied to longstanding D&D players.

...anyway... You're right that all we can meaningfully discuss now is what's been released. But everything that's been released so far has to come with the asterisk that we don't know its context, which naturally leads to speculation, reliance on ones priors (i.e. biases), and therefore grousing 



Willie the Duck said:


> It's kind of an age-old question -- if category A is lessor to category B, is it ever right to go into category A and do any kind of remediation to outlier subcategories that are disproportionate within the category. In general I would say it is a good plan -- that hand-crossbow CBE/SS spammers, halberd PAM/GWM-ers, and one-handed staff/spear and shield PAMers are such disproportionate winners within the martial category doesn't really do much benefit for anyone wanting to play a martial in any other light (be it two weapon fighting, sword and shield, or whatnot). Better to bring those strategies in line with the other options, while simultaneously working on bringing playing a martial up overall (and/or casters down).



emphasis mine

I completely agree with you--that's what should happen. I am, however, somewhat cynical that they'll only do the first part while not simultaneously doing the second part ...because, well, see above.


----------



## Chaosmancer

I guess looking over everything, the real question for me is "are these now good feats"? This is the part I'm struggling with. 

Is +1 Strength, the ability to bonus action attack after killing an enemy, and the +2 or +3 to damage once per turn worth a feat? 

Is +1 Dex, ignore cover, ignore range, ignore melee worth a feat? 

Or, should these get a little bit more? Because EVERYTHING gets the +1 ASI, so if that is standard and we take it away, how do these feats stack up? 


Also, since we are grousing about the negatives, I do want to point out some positives. Mage Slayer is now real good. Once per day, when you would fail a mental save, you succeed, is REALLY good on just about any martial class. Durable is now incredibly good (for tables that aren't mine, because of how I do HD) in that it allows you to spend hit dice as a bonus action in combat, and it gives advantage on Death Saves. That's huge for barbarians and fighters. 

There are a lot of nerfs as well, but there are buffs that I really like.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> (they nerfed Guidance,).




No, they took guidance out behind the shed and capped it. There is no way that is staying in the game, and if it does, it is now useless.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> Or, should these get a little bit more? Because EVERYTHING gets the +1 ASI, so if that is standard and we take it away, how do these feats stack up?




There are people who will try to calculate the value of feats, exclusive of the ASIs, and only choose the best ones, but the way I personally look at it is that the +1 makes my character strictly better at their job, so I can pick the non-ASI part I like best, regardless of how effective it is.

It's kind of like the ASI is the broccoli, and the other parts are the ice cream.  I ate my broccoli, so I can choose whatever flavor ice cream I want for dessert.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Chaosmancer said:


> No, they took guidance out behind the shed and capped it. There is no way that is staying in the game, and if it does, it is now useless.



It's not useless. It's like a minor Bardic Inspiration that you get to give to failed ability checks once per day per person. It's pretty useful still.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It's not useless. It's like a minor Bardic Inspiration that you get to give to failed ability checks once per day per person. It's pretty useful still.



This. It no longer feels like The Best Mechanical Cantrip. And I hope they do the same for Resistance to make it useful rather than trash.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bill Zebub said:


> There are people who will try to calculate the value of feats, exclusive of the ASIs, and only choose the best ones, but the way I personally look at it is that the +1 makes my character strictly better at their job, so I can pick the non-ASI part I like best, regardless of how effective it is.
> 
> It's kind of like the ASI is the broccoli, and the other parts are the ice cream.  I ate my broccoli, so I can choose whatever flavor ice cream I want for dessert.




Sure, but I'd rather all the flavors of ice cream be good, and not some of them be good, and others be molded and rancid because they used spoiled milk to make them. 

There is nothing inherently wrong, especially during a playtest, it making sure things are all well-designed and useful.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It's not useless. It's like a minor Bardic Inspiration that you get to give to failed ability checks once per day per person. It's pretty useful still.




No, it really isn't. 

Bard's get two cantrips. If one of them is vicious mockery and the other is minor illusion, then they have two abilities they can use all day, multiple times. 

If one of them is guidance, they have a 1/day spell that is unusable after they've used it. Also, you'd have to track who got guidance, marking each member of the party off, over the course of the entire day. 


If you want to limit it so it can't be spammed, then make it once per hour or until initiative is rolled. It can't be a cantrip and be limited to once per day. That misses the entire point of cantrips.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Chaosmancer said:


> No, it really isn't.
> 
> Bard's get two cantrips. If one of them is vicious mockery and the other is minor illusion, then they have two abilities they can use all day, multiple times.



Who said anything about Bards taking it? They can, but so can other classes. Rangers can take it now. Presumably, so can Paladins. They couldn't do that before without taking a specific fighting style. This is a buff to those classes. 


Chaosmancer said:


> If one of them is guidance, they have a 1/day spell that is unusable after they've used it. Also, you'd have to track who got guidance, marking each member of the party off, over the course of the entire day.



It's not a "once a day spell". It's a "once a day *per creature*". If you have infinite people, you can cast it an infinite amount of times a day (well, 14,400 times a day if you somehow cast it endlessly for the whole day, but that's neither here nor there). 


Chaosmancer said:


> If you want to limit it so it can't be spammed, then make it once per hour or until initiative is rolled. It can't be a cantrip and be limited to once per day. That misses the entire point of cantrips.



I'd be okay with limiting it to once per short rest per creature. But I don't see any problem with limiting it to once per day per creature. It's still a good cantrip. It doesn't take spell slots, can cause a creature to avoid failing an important ability check as a reaction, and isn't as spammable as it used to be.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> If one of them is guidance, they have a 1/day spell that is unusable after they've used it. Also, you'd have to track who got guidance, marking each member of the party off, over the course of the entire day.




That first sentence suggests a misunderstanding of the spell, whereas the second sentence seems to suggest you do understand it, so I'm not sure where you are.

Also, you do realize don't you that it's now a reaction spell?  As in, you only cast it when somebody has failed, specifically when somebody has failed by 4 or less.  Since that only happens about 1/5 of the time, you'd have to cast the old version 5 times to make it worth one of the new ones.  Across 4 party members, that makes it equivalent to spamming the old one 20 times, without the nuisance of having the cleric yell "I cast guidance!" 20 times.

Vast, vast, vast improvement.

YMMV.

EDIT: And as the previous poster just said while I was typing, yes a short rest would be fine, too.  But even on a long rest the new version is great.  I actually stopped taking guidance because it gets so annoying, but with this change I'll start using it again.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

FitzTheRuke said:


> I think you're right. All they have to do for a "simple"-built champion-like fighter with maneuvers is to make the maneuvers it uses easy-to-use.




I think we will see 4 NPC classes: expert, warrior, mage, priest.
All of them can be played by those who want simple classes.
They will be in the new basic D&D document.


----------



## Bill Zebub

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think we will see 4 NPC classes: expert, warrior, mage, priest.
> All of them can be played by those who want simple classes.
> They will be in the new basic D&D document.



Did you mean Sidekicks?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Dupe


----------



## DEFCON 1

Chaosmancer said:


> Bard's get two cantrips. If one of them is vicious mockery and the other is minor illusion, then they have two abilities they can use all day, multiple times.



Over the past 8 years I've yet to see ANY of my players use Minor Illusion more than like a half-dozen times _in any entire campaign_... let alone use it multiple times per in-game day.

So I understand conceptually what you are talking about... I just think the example you use does not actually hold the weight you were trying to give it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Bill Zebub said:


> Did you mean Sidekicks?



Yes. Sorry.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Who said anything about Bards taking it? They can, but so can other classes. Rangers can take it now. Presumably, so can Paladins. They couldn't do that before without taking a specific fighting style. This is a buff to those classes.




I mentioned bards because they were the first class I thought of. 

But, well, in a purely technical sense you would be correct. It is a buff that Rangers can take cantrips. But that buff isn't dependent on them not nerfing Guidance into the ground. 

This is like saying that if they reduced the Greataxe to a d10 weapon, but allowed wizards to use it, its a buff. Sure, the wizard couldn't use a greataxe before, but the Greataxe still got nerfed. They are two different things.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It's not a "once a day spell". It's a "once a day *per creature*". If you have infinite people, you can cast it an infinite amount of times a day (well, 14,400 times a day if you somehow cast it endlessly for the whole day, but that's neither here nor there).




And so it can be cast... what? 3 times in a party of four? 

The problem with this logic is that there is no scenario where you ever use this on more than 10 people. Not only would each person have to be trying on a different six second round (because if they all tried at once, you can only use one reaction) but you'd never have that many NPCs attempting an important skill roll. 

Additionally, most games don't have multiple people attempting important skill checks. You have the "expert" who handles most of the skills. And since they are handling the most skills, they are also going to be more likely to tell the caster to NOT cast guidance on them, because that skill check "isn't important enough" to warrant their one use of guidance. Because they only can benefit from it once, so it has to be used on an important check. 

This also removes the ability to use Guidance during fun RP moments, because that would remove it from being used when needed. And of course, "when needed" the check is going to succeed. so they don't get to use it then either.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I'd be okay with limiting it to once per short rest per creature. But I don't see any problem with limiting it to once per day per creature. It's still a good cantrip. It doesn't take spell slots, can cause a creature to avoid failing an important ability check as a reaction, and isn't as spammable as it used to be.




I'm flabbergasted you can't see the problems with this. 

Let's give yet another issue with it. The creature fails the roll by 4. Do you cast Guidance? You have a 75% chance of wasting it, because only a roll of 4 could make the roll a success, but even if the spell doesn't lead to you succeeding, it is still wasted. How often are people going to roll 1's on guidance, wasting their only daily chance to use it? 

I get spamming it was an issue, I didn't think it was a big issue, and I'd rather it be removed from the game than be made this useless and anemic.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bill Zebub said:


> That first sentence suggests a misunderstanding of the spell, whereas the second sentence seems to suggest you do understand it, so I'm not sure where you are.
> 
> Also, you do realize don't you that it's now a reaction spell?  As in, you only cast it when somebody has failed, specifically when somebody has failed by 4 or less.  Since that only happens about 1/5 of the time, you'd have to cast the old version 5 times to make it worth one of the new ones.  Across 4 party members, that makes it equivalent to spamming the old one 20 times, without the nuisance of having the cleric yell "I cast guidance!" 20 times.
> 
> Vast, vast, vast improvement.
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> EDIT: And as the previous poster just said while I was typing, yes a short rest would be fine, too.  But even on a long rest the new version is great.  I actually stopped taking guidance because it gets so annoying, but with this change I'll start using it again.




Yes, I understand how the spell works. But I'm looking at how it interacts with a single player. Because as I pointed out, you often don't have every single player making skill checks that are important. 

And the thing is, the "vast, vast improvement" of making it a reaction is something I like. That is a great usage for it, it prevents it from breaking concentration and it limits the spam. It is a wonderful change that does vastly improve the ability for avoiding the nuisance problems of it. 

None of that is taken away by allowing it to remain a cantrip, instead of this psuedo-daily ability where you have to consider if the Rogue failing to unlock this door is worth using guidance on, because he might later fail a hide check that would be more important, and you can only guidance the rogue once per day. I'd strongly fight to keep it a reaction, that is a good change. But it isn't a good enough change to warrant kneecapping the ability by making it so limited. 

Keep the reaction, change it back to being able to be used at-will, with no restiction on the number of times people benefit, and I think we have a better and less aggravating version of what we had before.


----------



## Chaosmancer

DEFCON 1 said:


> Over the past 8 years I've yet to see ANY of my players use Minor Illusion more than like a half-dozen times _in any entire campaign_... let alone use it multiple times per in-game day.
> 
> So I understand conceptually what you are talking about... I just think the example you use does not actually hold the weight you were trying to give it.




Maybe not for you, I've seen people spamming minor illusion constantly. Especially when I was in the group with the guy who believed in the "ultimate cover" of minor illusion himself into a fog cloud. 

The biggest use for it I've seen spammed is actually the audible part, which involved a lot of creative usage.


----------



## tetrasodium

Chaosmancer said:


> I mentioned bards because they were the first class I thought of.
> 
> But, well, in a purely technical sense you would be correct. It is a buff that Rangers can take cantrips. But that buff isn't dependent on them not nerfing Guidance into the ground.
> 
> This is like saying that if they reduced the Greataxe to a d10 weapon, but allowed wizards to use it, its a buff. Sure, the wizard couldn't use a greataxe before, but the Greataxe still got nerfed. They are two different things.
> 
> 
> 
> *And so it can be cast... what? 3 times in a party of four?*
> 
> The problem with this logic is that there is no scenario where you ever use this on more than 10 people. Not only would each person have to be trying on a different six second round (because if they all tried at once, you can only use one reaction) but you'd never have that many NPCs attempting an important skill roll.
> *
> Additionally, most games don't have multiple people attempting important skill checks. You have the "expert" who handles most of the skills. And since they are handling the most skills, they are also going to be more likely to tell the caster to NOT cast guidance on them, because that skill check "isn't important enough" to warrant their one use of guidance. Because they only can benefit from it once, so it has to be used on an important check.*
> 
> This also removes the ability to use Guidance during fun RP moments, because that would remove it from being used when needed. And of course, "when needed" the check is going to succeed. so they don't get to use it then either.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm flabbergasted you can't see the problems with this.
> 
> Let's give yet another issue with it. The creature fails the roll by 4. Do you cast Guidance? You have a 75% chance of wasting it, because only a roll of 4 could make the roll a success, but even if the spell doesn't lead to you succeeding, it is still wasted. How often are people going to roll 1's on guidance, wasting their only daily chance to use it?
> 
> I get spamming it was an issue, I didn't think it was a big issue, and I'd rather it be removed from the game than be made this useless and anemic.



I have 5 players, that's 5 times unless the caster is unable to target themselves with guidance.  Also 5e's overly compressed skill system is extremely relevant since nearly any check of note is probably going to be a skill that multiple characters have.


----------



## OB1

I strongly suspect that we will see a -xPB to hit/ +2xPB to damage half feat in the Warriors group.  

I also suspect that Warriors big feature is going to be getting extra feats, maybe as many as 1 every odd level, but that they must come from the Warrior's Feat list (so no grabbing the ASI feat with these).  That would go a long way to increasing the Warrior group's effectiveness and versatility in all pillars.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I think Guidance being nerfed is great, but I don't quite like the result. Tracking who's had it seems like a bit of a pain. 

Perhaps they should just make it useable Prof Times per Short Rest. 

Still nerfed. Guidance Player can track it on their own in the same way they track their other resources.

The only problem I see with that is is goes a bit against how cantrips are supposed to be useable "at-will", but I dunno, I think it works.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> I get spamming it was an issue, I didn't think it was a big issue, and I'd rather it be removed from the game than be made this useless and anemic.




Well, fortunately you can pretend it has been removed from the game!

One tweak would be to only allow it turn a failure into a success once per day per character.  So that you don't have to worry about "wasting it" on a -4 miss; you can spam it until it succeeds.

And/or add it to the "resets on initiative" list.  Although that's a little odd because it's not so much a combat ability.  Still, could work.

However, I suspect they'll actually try another solution entirely, just because tracking "who has had it today?" will turn out to be a nuisance.


----------



## Stalker0

Mort said:


> Yes, since disadvantage is a bigger debuff than -2. Plus Disadvantage is great Crit protection, while this is useless against a crit (unless they change the crit rules further than they have indicated).



Well they have actually quite a bit. From teh first playtest, PCs don't take crits from monsters. So....no need for crit protection.


----------



## Mort

Stalker0 said:


> Well they have actually quite a bit. From teh first playtest, PCs don't take crits from monsters. So....no need for crit protection.




I thought it was indicated that monster crits would instead have interesting effects? Which would still mean crit protection is necessary (and maybe even better).

Unless they meant that monster crits were eliminated to make room for interesting effects. In which case sure. Thigh they have to figure out a another effect for Adamantine then.


----------



## Chaosmancer

tetrasodium said:


> I have 5 players, that's 5 times unless the caster is unable to target themselves with guidance.  Also 5e's overly compressed skill system is extremely relevant since nearly any check of note is probably going to be a skill that multiple characters have.




Sorry, I don't see how the skill system being "compressed" has anything to do with it. 

Sure, you may possibly get 5 chances to use an at-will ability. That is IF each player has a relevant skill and IF it gets rolled and IF they fail by less than 4. 

The skills that multiple characters have tend to be skills that rolled as group checks, like perception or stealth. And group checks are even worse, because if one person fails... well, either you need to use it because otherwise everyone fails, or it doesn't make a difference because SOMEONE succeeded and that's all that matters. 

And this does nothing to address players not wanting the spell cast on them so they don't "waste it". 
Does nothing to address the tracking issue. 
Does nothing to address the low roll issue of not wanting to risk wasting it on a gamble. 

Frankly, if this is what people want from the spell, why not just make it a first level spell and be done with it? What is the point of a cantrip that has limited uses per day?


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bill Zebub said:


> Well, fortunately you can pretend it has been removed from the game!




Yes, I know. However, this pesky thing called "a public playtest" makes me think I could instead try and get them to change their minds instead of pretending like nothing wrong. 

I know, crazy, giving feedback that might change the rules.



Bill Zebub said:


> One tweak would be to only allow it turn a failure into a success once per day per character.  So that you don't have to worry about "wasting it" on a -4 miss; you can spam it until it succeeds.
> 
> And/or add it to the "resets on initiative" list.  Although that's a little odd because it's not so much a combat ability.  Still, could work.
> 
> However, I suspect they'll actually try another solution entirely, just because tracking "who has had it today?" will turn out to be a nuisance.




I hope it is some other solution. The initiative reset seems decent, but I would worry about games that have low combat. This is a skill spell, it should be shine in non-combat days. 

But, honestly, what is wrong with just making it a reaction cantrip, and allowing it to otherwise work like it did before? At-will, you can just do this whenever someone fails a skill check. Why is this bad? I fully get the annoyance of it being used before every single skill check, but after a failure? That seems to be perfectly fine. So why is that not a good solution?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> Yes, I know. However, this pesky thing called "a public playtest" makes me think I could instead try and get them to change their minds instead of pretending like nothing wrong.
> 
> I know, crazy, giving feedback that might change the rules.




No, feedback is fine.  And your feedback makes sense.  But you seem...really wound up about this.



Chaosmancer said:


> But, honestly, what is wrong with just making it a reaction cantrip, and allowing it to otherwise work like it did before? At-will, you can just do this whenever someone fails a skill check. Why is this bad? I fully get the annoyance of it being used before every single skill check, but after a failure? That seems to be perfectly fine. So why is that not a good solution?




In that case they may as well just give everybody +2.5 across the board, because the only thing limiting its use now is that sometimes people forget to cast it.  If it's a reaction after a failure, with no limitations, then every party will make sure somebody has it, and it will always get used on any failure of 4 or less.  Guidance is already considered too "mandatory"; your design would push that even higher.

I don't know what the constraint should be, but I'd like to see something.


----------



## tetrasodium

Chaosmancer said:


> Sorry, I don't see how the skill system being "compressed" has anything to do with it.
> 
> Sure, you may possibly get 5 chances to use an at-will ability. That is IF each player has a relevant skill and IF it gets rolled and IF they fail by less than 4.
> 
> The skills that multiple characters have tend to be skills that rolled as group checks, like perception or stealth. And group checks are even worse, because if one person fails... well, either you need to use it because otherwise everyone fails, or it doesn't make a difference because SOMEONE succeeded and that's all that matters.
> 
> And this does nothing to address players not wanting the spell cast on them so they don't "waste it".
> Does nothing to address the tracking issue.
> Does nothing to address the low roll issue of not wanting to risk wasting it on a gamble.
> 
> Frankly, if this is what people want from the spell, why not just make it a first level spell and be done with it? What is the point of a cantrip that has limited uses per day?



There used to be like 36 skills (I'm eyeballing it), 5e has a mere 18 & more than a couple of those are incredibly niche while a handful are must have skills.  That works great in a small group of 2-3 players but breaks down in larger groups.  The result of that compressed skill list is that almost any important skill check is certain to have multiple characters with the skill in a large group even if there was no effort to coordinate between players.  "I cast guidance" combines with "I'm proficient too"
*
The PHB or DMG having a secondary skill list that splits the skills into a wider array of choices  would be a great large group aiding optional/variant rule for 5.5.*
.


----------



## Lojaan

Wow. People are actually getting fired up about _guidance!_? Whoo boy.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Chaosmancer said:


> And group checks are even worse, because if one person fails... well, either you need to use it because otherwise everyone fails



Actually, over half the group has to fail for a group check to fail.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Lojaan said:


> Wow. People are actually getting fired up about _guidance!_? Whoo boy.



Yeah... A cantrip that's _still _one of the best cantrips, and people are just upset that it's no longer 24/7 spammable... At least I understand the annoyance over having to track it, but that applies to everything now, starting from prof/day racial abilities.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bill Zebub said:


> No, feedback is fine.  And your feedback makes sense.  But you seem...really wound up about this.




It has been a rough week, and this change does irritate me. I guess it could be because it seems like such an unnecessary change, but it just absolutely kneecaps the most common support actions I've seen. 



Bill Zebub said:


> In that case they may as well just give everybody +2.5 across the board, because the only thing limiting its use now is that sometimes people forget to cast it.  If it's a reaction after a failure, with no limitations, then every party will make sure somebody has it, and it will always get used on any failure of 4 or less.  Guidance is already considered too "mandatory"; your design would push that even higher.
> 
> I don't know what the constraint should be, but I'd like to see something.




And Range, or being in a social situation. See, this is one of the things that making it a reaction really helps with. Before, you could cast it on the rogue, and the the rogue heads up ahead and ends up using it later. Now, you can't do that, the person casting it has to be nearby. You could even limit the range, and have the caster need to be within 15 ft, that is a major limitation for a lot of skill checks. 

I also don't think it is "too mandatory" right now. People find it useful, and it is one of the more powerful cantrips, but it isn't like there aren't other cantrips that can't be taken.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> It has been a rough week, and this change does irritate me. I guess it could be because it seems like such an unnecessary change, but it just absolutely kneecaps the most common support actions I've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> And Range, or being in a social situation. See, this is one of the things that making it a reaction really helps with. Before, you could cast it on the rogue, and the the rogue heads up ahead and ends up using it later. Now, you can't do that, the person casting it has to be nearby. You could even limit the range, and have the caster need to be within 15 ft, that is a major limitation for a lot of skill checks.




I thought of range. But that means that players, at least some of them, will always be announcing they are within 15’, instead of announcing “I cast guidance.”

I get your points, but I also think guidance is a problem now, and the solution is tricky. 



Chaosmancer said:


> I also don't think it is "too mandatory" right now. People find it useful, and it is one of the more powerful cantrips, but it isn't like there aren't other cantrips that can't be taken.




That’s true. Right now it’s only “partly mandatory” because…I suspect…everybody is so tired of it being cast all the frickin time they’d they rather just not have the bonus. 

Making it a reaction would, I think, change that.


----------



## Chaosmancer

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Actually, over half the group has to fail for a group check to fail.




Actually, that depends on the DM. Because trust me, many many many DMs have "group stealth" that means that everyone has to pass of the group is spotted.



fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Yeah... A cantrip that's _still _one of the best cantrips, and people are just upset that it's no longer 24/7 spammable... At least I understand the annoyance over having to track it, but that applies to everything now, starting from prof/day racial abilities.




See, this is what I don't get. How is "once day, maybe turn a failed skill check into a success, if the caster is in range" still one of the best cantrips, compared to the many many incredibly good cantrips? Even if we discount combat cantrips (which make up a good chunk of all cantrips) you have a massive list of powerful cantrips to choose from. 

Guidance was very very good, I know, but now? Now it is so anemic I'm just not sure it is worth taking. Maybe it is a lack of people taking skills in games I've seen, but you generally have (per adventuring day) one or two people in the party making the vast majority of skill checks. And they do that because they are the best at those skills, which means they will still do that even without guidance.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bill Zebub said:


> I thought of range. But that means that players, at least some of them, will always be announcing they are within 15’, instead of announcing “I cast guidance.”
> 
> I get your points, but I also think guidance is a problem now, and the solution is tricky.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s true. Right now it’s only “partly mandatory” because…I suspect…everybody is so tired of it being cast all the frickin time they’d they rather just not have the bonus.
> 
> Making it a reaction would, I think, change that.




I guess, here is the question 

The party is exploring an old ruin, with traps and such. No monsters, no combat. It is a pure skill crawl and exploration. Is it really a problem if they can cast Guidance any time they fail to try and succeed? 

Guidance, Bardic inspiration, and the Help action (which notably was also nerfed) are the only things you can do to aid another person in a skill check. It is the only participation some people have with the adventure in question, so are we running into a problem to allow them to do it? And if we are, is the solution "nerf it until it isn't a problem" or is the solution to try and make other options for them to utilize?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> I guess, here is the question
> 
> The party is exploring an old ruin, with traps and such. No monsters, no combat. It is a pure skill crawl and exploration. Is it really a problem if they can cast Guidance any time they fail to try and succeed?
> 
> Guidance, Bardic inspiration, and the Help action (which notably was also nerfed) are the only things you can do to aid another person in a skill check. It is the only participation some people have with the adventure in question, so are we running into a problem to allow them to do it? And if we are, is the solution "nerf it until it isn't a problem" or is the solution to try and make other options for them to utilize?




My counter question: does that mechanic result in any interesting/difficult decision-making? I believe hard decisions are the essence of game design.

And, by the way, I feel the same way about the Help action.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Guidance is tricky. In 5e it's both a bit to powerful for a cantrip, and the constant guidance spam can be annoying. But the 1D&D version where you have to keep track of who it's been used on is too fiddly for such a minor benefit, and also doesn't fit with the idea of cantrips being spells you know innately and can use often.

If only D&D had an existing mechanic to limit how often certain spells can be cast...


----------



## TwoSix

I'd rather see Guidance be along the lines of "You cast Guidance on the target.  For the duration of the spell (let's say 8 hours), they have a +1d4 to all ability checks for one ability of the caster's choice."

So you give the scout a bonus to Dex or Wisdom checks all day, you give the grappler a bonus to Strength, you give the wizard with knowledge skills a bonus to Int, etc.  And then the user of Guidance doesn't have to worry about the action economy aspect of it ever again, which is the annoying part at the table.  Also make it a minute casting time so it doesn't get changed around all the time, especially in a combat or pressure situation.  Maybe make it so the recipient can't gain the benefit again for 24 hours.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> Guidance is tricky. In 5e it's both a bit to powerful for a cantrip, and the constant guidance spam can be annoying. But the 1D&D version where you have to keep track of who it's been used on is too fiddly for such a minor benefit, and also doesn't fit with the idea of cantrips being spells you know innately and can use often.
> 
> If only D&D had an existing mechanic to limit how often certain spells can be cast...




Agree with all of this. The thing is, it’s too weak to be a first level spell. Maybe it should just go away.


----------



## Bill Zebub

TwoSix said:


> I'd rather see Guidance be along the lines of "You cast Guidance on the target.  For the duration of the spell (let's say 8 hours), they have a +1d4 to all ability checks for one ability of the caster's choice."
> 
> So you give the scout a bonus to Dex or Wisdom checks all day, you give the grappler a bonus to Strength, you give the wizard with knowledge skills a bonus to Int, etc.  And then the user of Guidance doesn't have to worry about the action economy aspect of it ever again, which is the annoying part at the table.  Also make it a minute casting time so it doesn't get changed around all the time, especially in a combat or pressure situation.  Maybe make it so the recipient can't gain the benefit again for 24 hours.



Yeah this could work.


----------



## TwoSix

Bill Zebub said:


> Yeah this could work.



I don't mind the numerical boost, I mind the awkward dialogue like

"You think you hear something in the woods.  Make a Perception check."
"I cast guidance!"
"You cast a spell to see if you noticed something?"


----------



## Bill Zebub

TwoSix said:


> I don't mind the numerical boost, I mind the awkward dialogue like
> 
> "You think you hear something in the woods.  Make a Perception check."
> "I cast guidance!"
> "You cast a spell to see if you noticed something?"




"No, I cast a spell on somebody else to see if he notices something."

Yeah, that's also a problem.  Your solution would alleviate that.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> Guidance is tricky. In 5e it's both a bit to powerful for a cantrip, and the constant guidance spam can be annoying. But the 1D&D version where you have to keep track of who it's been used on is too fiddly for such a minor benefit, and also doesn't fit with the idea of cantrips being spells you know innately and can use often.
> 
> If only D&D had an existing mechanic to limit how often certain spells can be cast...




Probably just making a reaction is good enough. So at least you don't have to spam it beforehand, but need to cast the spell in the instant you need it.
Then of course it could be more tricky using it while haggling or bluffing or sneaking and so on.
Also maybe disallow the use on oneself and if you really want to limit it, make it:
once you turn a failure in a success, you can't cast the spell for a minute (a breather, as I call it).


----------



## Bill Zebub

UngeheuerLich said:


> once you turn a failure in a success, you can't cast the spell for a minute (a breather, as I call it).




Or until rolling initiative.

EDIT: And for those who think the definition of a cantrip is that you can cast it as often as you want:

"After using this spell to turn a failure into a success, the spell will _subtract_ 1d4 from ability checks when used, until you next roll initiative."

There.  Fixed.  Cast away!


----------



## Mort

Bill Zebub said:


> Or until rolling initiative.
> 
> EDIT: And for those who think the definition of a cantrip is that you can cast it as often as you want:
> 
> "After using this spell to turn a failure into a success, the spell will _subtract_ 1d4 from ability checks when used, until you next roll initiative."
> 
> There.  Fixed.  Cast away!




Much rather have it do nothing until recharge. otherwise, in a skill contest heavy game, the spell is still overly good (an a bit cheesy).

I think I prefer the caster can only cast this spell (for benefit) proficiency times per day.

Or heck, just make it a cleric ability (proficiency times per day) instead of a cantrip tax.


----------



## Kannik

Chaosmancer said:


> The party is exploring an old ruin, with traps and such. No monsters, no combat. It is a pure skill crawl and exploration. Is it really a problem if they can cast Guidance any time they fail to try and succeed?



If this happens, the party effectively has +12.5% chance of success on everything.  So all challenges are less challenging; might as well just revise the DC table and remove the spell.  Or, if the DM wants to keep the challenge as intended, they can bump all the DCs by 2; once again, might as well just remove the spell as it does nothing except create a lot of extra tabletop chatter and perhaps upset expectations.  

On the whole, choices are good in an RPG for they are what make the game a game and makes it interesting and memorable.  When +2.5 all day, every day, on (nearly) everything is possible, it reduces both choices and the challenge (including the potentially interesting results of a failure).  Putting limits on a cantrip may be somewhat counter to the idea of most other cantrips, so perhaps guidance needs to be folded into something more akin to a leveled spell like Bless for a more limited and choice-based thing.  But keeping it as a cantrip as a straight bonus to skill rolls I say it needs limits to work best for the game and gameplay.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Kannik said:


> If this happens, the party effectively has +12.5% chance of success on everything.  So all challenges are less challenging; might as well just revise the DC table and remove the spell.  Or, if the DM wants to keep the challenge as intended, they can bump all the DCs by 2; once again, might as well just remove the spell as it does nothing except create a lot of extra tabletop chatter and perhaps upset expectations.
> 
> On the whole, choices are good in an RPG for they are what make the game a game and makes it interesting and memorable.  When +2.5 all day, every day, on (nearly) everything is possible, it reduces both choices and the challenge (including the potentially interesting results of a failure).  Putting limits on a cantrip may be somewhat counter to the idea of most other cantrips, so perhaps guidance needs to be folded into something more akin to a leveled spell like Bless for a more limited and choice-based thing.  But keeping it as a cantrip as a straight bonus to skill rolls I say it needs limits to work best for the game and gameplay.




Yeah, this.

If there aren't any interesting choices to make, and the players who say "I cast guidance!" all the time are rewarded simply for remembering to do that, it's a bad spell.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Mort said:


> Or heck, just make it a cleric ability (proficiency times per day) instead of a cantrip tax.




That would be better than a spammable cantrip.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Chaosmancer said:


> See, this is what I don't get. How is "once day, maybe turn a failed skill check into a success, if the caster is in range" still one of the best cantrips, compared to the many many incredibly good cantrips?



You can potentially turn a failure into success. You are free to pick any of a number of other cantrips that let you do that.



Chaosmancer said:


> The party is exploring an old ruin, with traps and such. No monsters, no combat. It is a pure skill crawl and exploration. Is it really a problem if they can cast Guidance any time they fail to try and succeed?



Yes. Someone constantly shouting 'I cast Guidance' is a waste of gaming time, and nothing about spam-Guidance is interesting gameplay. It makes any session worse if it's used as it makes sense to use, which is all the time.



Chaosmancer said:


> It is the only participation some people have with the adventure in question, so are we running into a problem to allow them to do it? And if we are, is the solution "nerf it until it isn't a problem" or is the solution to try and make other options for them to utilize?



I would rather we give the players something _meaningful _to do, something that requires a human behind the wheel. That most RPGs encourage only the one expert in the party doing everything, is a design flaw, but this one _cantrip_ only makes it worse. It is still only the one expert for that skill doing anything, only now, instead of this cantrip-owner maybe thinking of a way to contribute, he will only ever shout 'I cast Guidance' over and over, and we have reduced their potential contribution to anything a bot triggered by hearing 'roll' could do.


----------



## Remathilis

Bill Zebub said:


> Agree with all of this. The thing is, it’s too weak to be a first level spell. Maybe it should just go away.



It can join True Strike and Blade Ward in the "looks good on paper, does nothing in practice." While you're at it, toss Spare the Dying in that pile too.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Remathilis said:


> It can join True Strike and Blade Ward in the "looks good on paper, does nothing in practice." While you're at it, toss Spare the Dying in that pile too.



I don't know I think spare the dying could do for a little upgrade but only a little.


----------



## Horwath

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It's not useless. It's like a minor Bardic Inspiration that you get to give to failed ability checks once per day per person. It's pretty useful still.



I get that guidance needed to be nerfed because if it's endless spam.

But once per day per target is horrible.

if it was a number of times per day equal to prof modifier, then it would be in consideration to spend a cantrip slot.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Horwath said:


> if it was a number of times per day equal to prof modifier, then it would be in consideration to spend a cantrip slot.



Then it would be weaker in a lot of parties in levels 1 to 8...


----------



## Horwath

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Then it would be weaker in a lot of parties in levels 1 to 8...



I meant per day per target


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Horwath said:


> I meant per day per target



That would be a LOT of tracking.


----------



## Horwath

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> That would be a LOT of tracking.



everyone tracks for themselves.

How many guidances did I recieve at 5th level?

1 out of 3? 2 out of 3? it's not that hard.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

All that work, for one cantrip?

I don't get people's obsession why this one cantrip out of a ton of them should be more powerful than a lot of levelled spells. While also stacking with everything. It is a _cantrip._


----------



## Bill Zebub

I’m leaning toward “get rid of it.”  

PB/day Cleric class feature? Fine. 

1st level spell with 8 hour duration?  Fine. 

But not a cantrip.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bill Zebub said:


> My counter question: does that mechanic result in any interesting/difficult decision-making? I believe hard decisions are the essence of game design.
> 
> And, by the way, I feel the same way about the Help action.




I disagree, difficult decisions are not the essence of game design. If I sit down to play a game I should not have to make "difficult" decisions on whether or not my method of play is effective. 

The thing is, Guidance is only useful for people who want to play a support character. I suppose the decision can be difficult if you mean you have two, equally valid choices between playing support or playing damage dealers, that is a difficult decision I can get behind. But once you choose to play support, it should not be another difficult decision on how to effectively achieve that. The support options should be clear, and they should work. 


I dislike the change to the Help action, because it doesn't make sense. Two untrained people trying to break down a door is equally effective to one untrained person? Logically that doesn't work. I like it on a case-by-case basis. If you want to help someone figure out what this religious symbol means, you need to be trained, if you want to help keep an eye out for your target in a crowded street, you don't need to be trained.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Kannik said:


> If this happens, the party effectively has +12.5% chance of success on everything.  So all challenges are less challenging; might as well just revise the DC table and remove the spell.  Or, if the DM wants to keep the challenge as intended, they can bump all the DCs by 2; once again, might as well just remove the spell as it does nothing except create a lot of extra tabletop chatter and perhaps upset expectations.




So, if someone takes dueling fighting style do you increase all monster hit points by +6? If someone takes archery fighting style, do you increase all AC by +2? These are also passive benefits that make all fights less challenging. If the group equips shields, do you increase monster to hits by +2? 

The thing it sounds like you are saying here is "It is bad if the party has a way to make it easier to succeed on skill checks." But... why is that the case? Why is support play bad? After all, by choosing to make a character who does support, I'm not choosing to do other things. Why is that cost not good enough, and I also have to be limited and unable to consistently provide support like I can consistently provide utility or consistently provide damage?



Kannik said:


> On the whole, choices are good in an RPG for they are what make the game a game and makes it interesting and memorable.  When +2.5 all day, every day, on (nearly) everything is possible, it reduces both choices and the challenge (including the potentially interesting results of a failure).  Putting limits on a cantrip may be somewhat counter to the idea of most other cantrips, so perhaps guidance needs to be folded into something more akin to a leveled spell like Bless for a more limited and choice-based thing.  But keeping it as a cantrip as a straight bonus to skill rolls I say it needs limits to work best for the game and gameplay.




But there still are choices. Sure, "do I use this ability I chose to take" isn't a choice, but that doesn't mean that suddenly there are no choices anywhere else. Why don't those count? Why do we need to make it so, effectively, the Help action if you have proficiency is the ONLY way to offer skill support unless you are a Bard?


----------



## tetrasodium

Chaosmancer said:


> I disagree, difficult decisions are not the essence of game design. If I sit down to play a game I should not have to make "difficult" decisions on whether or not my method of play is effective.
> 
> *The thing is, Guidance is only useful for people who want to play a support character.* I suppose the decision can be difficult if you mean you have two, equally valid choices between playing support or playing damage dealers, that is a difficult decision I can get behind. But once you choose to play support, it should not be another difficult decision on how to effectively achieve that. The support options should be clear, and they should work.
> 
> 
> I dislike the change to the Help action, because it doesn't make sense. Two untrained people trying to break down a door is equally effective to one untrained person? Logically that doesn't work. I like it on a case-by-case basis. If you want to help someone figure out what this religious symbol means, you need to be trained, if you want to help keep an eye out for your target in a crowded street, you don't need to be trained.



*One* cantrip does not a "support" character make.  Guidance is on the divine & primal lists. As a divination cantrip it is being available to:

_all_ rangers
_all_ bards
one of the three Ardling options (Idyllic)
anyone who takes the first level magic initiate feat for some other divine or primal cantrip
Likely all clerics
Likely all druids
possibly paladins
Possibly warrior archetypes that grant divine or primal cantrips


----------



## Chaosmancer

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> You can potentially turn a failure into success. You are free to pick any of a number of other cantrips that let you do that.




Minor Illusion, Mage Hand, Control Flames, Mending. Are those good enough? Each of them can turn a situation that would have been a failure into a success. 

Now what?



fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Yes. Someone constantly shouting 'I cast Guidance' is a waste of gaming time, and nothing about spam-Guidance is interesting gameplay. It makes any session worse if it's used as it makes sense to use, which is all the time.




Congrats, it is a reaction and now they won't spam it and they won't waste game time. Instead they will just waste game time in the same way "I pick the lock!" is a waste of game time, by using their abilities to fulfill their role in the party. 

I'm also curious how something like "I shoot an arrow" or "I swing my sword" is interesting gameplay, since they also are spammable, and really don't do anything interesting.



fluffybunbunkittens said:


> I would rather we give the players something _meaningful _to do, something that requires a human behind the wheel. That most RPGs encourage only the one expert in the party doing everything, is a design flaw, but this one _cantrip_ only makes it worse. It is still only the one expert for that skill doing anything, only now, instead of this cantrip-owner maybe thinking of a way to contribute, he will only ever shout 'I cast Guidance' over and over, and we have reduced their potential contribution to anything a bot triggered by hearing 'roll' could do.




So, support play isn't meaningful. Helping your team mates succeed is a pointless endeavor? 

Sure, if the player isn't doing anything ever accept shouting "I CAST GUIDANCE!!" then that is annoying. Again, it is a reaction now, that problem is solved. But it seems your true issue is that Guidance is an effective and consistently useful support action, and that's.... bad somehow? 

Again, I look to the champion fighter and the "I attack" thing, and well, I don't like that, but people tell me all the time how that is important to their enjoyment, because they want a simple and effective strategy, not to have to spend twenty minutes devising elaborate plans.


----------



## Chaosmancer

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> All that work, for one cantrip?
> 
> I don't get people's obsession why this one cantrip out of a ton of them should be more powerful than a lot of levelled spells. While also stacking with everything. It is a _cantrip._




Because there is no other support ability for skill rolls that can be used at-will, except for the Help action, unless you are a Bard. Which is also limited per day. 

This was it. This was the entirety of skill support abilities. And it WASN'T more powerful than good leveled spells, because it was a +2.5 to a single roll for a single person. Bless is the same bonus (+1d4) to ALL saves and ALL attacks for THREE people. And attacks and saves are often life or death, while Guidance could be used for a number of things that were far less important. 

It is vital to an entire playstyle, so of course we are discussing it.


----------



## Chaosmancer

tetrasodium said:


> *One* cantrip does not a "support" character make.  Guidance is on the divine & primal lists. As a divination cantrip it is being available to:
> 
> _all_ rangers
> _all_ bards
> one of the three Ardling options (Idyllic)
> anyone who takes the first level magic initiate feat for some other divine or primal cantrip
> Likely all clerics
> Likely all druids
> possibly paladins
> Possibly warrior archetypes that grant divine or primal cantrips




Uh huh. 

So, what other skill support abilities are there? Would you like to make a big list of those? 

Yeah, more than a few people have access to it. Like ALL bards and ALL rangers and ALL clerics and ALL druids. You know what else ALL those classes have access to? Healing spells. Because those classes have access to support abilities. Cause... they support other people. Sure, they may not be specialized in 100% support, but... they could be. They certainly have more support options than Barbarians or Fighters. 

Oh, and some Ardlings have healing to. And if you take magic initiate you can get healing. And are you getting the point that what you really just did is mostly list everyone who may have access to playing a support style character? Sure *ONE* cantrip doesn't a support character make. Just like having access to firebolt doesn't make you a pyromancer, but if you want to play a pyromancer... you want firebolt as your go to, at-will, consistently useful tool. And that isn't a problem.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

for Heaven's sake are we still arguing about Guidance. If there is a problem complain in the survey. It is not worth arguing over. I don't care for it because we should not be tracking usage on a cantrip. Nor do I care if it can be spammed every round. Any game where someone's best option every round is to spam guidance has other problems besides guidance.


----------



## Stalker0

Chaosmancer said:


> The thing is, Guidance is only useful for people who want to play a support character.



Or a skill god. You take guidance to maximize skills.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> I disagree, difficult decisions are not the essence of game design. If I sit down to play a game I should not have to make "difficult" decisions on whether or not my method of play is effective.




It's not really a game, in my book, if you're not making trade offs.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Chaosmancer said:


> Minor Illusion, Mage Hand, Control Flames, Mending. Are those good enough? Each of them can turn a situation that would have been a failure into a success.



And you are free to try to use them on reaction to someone's failed roll.



Chaosmancer said:


> So, support play isn't meaningful. Helping your team mates succeed is a pointless endeavor?



If you didn't do anything to deserve it, yeah. There are no decision points or imagination if you just automatically do it. 'I passively add +2.5 to every roll ever' is not an interesting character trait or gameplay feature.



Chaosmancer said:


> Again, I look to the champion fighter and the "I attack" thing, and well, I don't like that, but people tell me all the time how that is important to their enjoyment, because they want a simple and effective strategy, not to have to spend twenty minutes devising elaborate plans.



If a player's only contribution to the game is pressing one button over and over, that's on them.

Look, I do sort of get where you're coming from. I just don't believe in having an ability that, if optimally used, is detrimental to the overall game experience, just to cater to... someone like that. There are already support roles that are more interesting than being a passive +2.5-bot, so they definitely have options to pick from.



Chaosmancer said:


> Bless is the same bonus (+1d4) to ALL saves and ALL attacks for THREE people. And attacks and saves are often life or death, while Guidance could be used for a number of things that were far less important.



Bless is bustedly good, but it costs slots and concentration, as you well know. It's certainly one of the abilities your support-oriented players might want to pick up, because at least there may be a moment's engagement with 'should I use a slot on this, at this time? but what if I want my concentration on that...' and boom, we are actually making decisions and playing a game.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bill Zebub said:


> It's not really a game, in my book, if you're not making trade offs.




Making trade-offs isn't the same as making difficult decisions. 

And isn't it a trade-off to take Guidance instead of something else? Why do I ALSO need to make more trade-offs? Making things more and more difficult to use effectively doesn't always make the game better and better, just more and more restrictive.


----------



## Chaosmancer

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> And you are free to try to use them on reaction to someone's failed roll.




So, I no longer need to find another cantrip that can turn a failed situation into a successful one, but another cantrip that does the exact mechanical thing that Guidance does? 

Okay, while I'm looking for that, you can accept that Find Traps is one of the best spells in the game, right? I mean, find me another spell that allows you to know whether or not there are traps nearby with just a single action, no chance of failure, and without having to actually look. Sure, it doesn't actually tell you where the trap is, and there are plenty of "traps" that it doesn't actually find, and you wouldn't cast it if you didn't already think there were traps nearby, but it is the only spell that does exactly what it does, so it must be the best!



fluffybunbunkittens said:


> If you didn't do anything to deserve it, yeah. There are no decision points or imagination if you just automatically do it. 'I passively add +2.5 to every roll ever' is not an interesting character trait or gameplay feature.




So, why does the fighter deserve to attack twice at level 5? I mean, it takes no imagination, no decisions, they just automatically can attack twice instead of once. Don't they have to EARN that ability to attack twice so that it is an interesting gameplay feature? And what about those level 11 paladins? Just free extra damage, on all weapons, any time they hit, they just have to remember to roll the die. Terrible ability, because they should have to use their imagination to justify that ability.  /s

Or maybe... players don't really need to "earn" their class abilities?



fluffybunbunkittens said:


> If a player's only contribution to the game is pressing one button over and over, that's on them.
> 
> Look, I do sort of get where you're coming from. I just don't believe in having an ability that, if optimally used, is detrimental to the overall game experience, just to cater to... someone like that. There are already support roles that are more interesting than being a passive +2.5-bot, so they definitely have options to pick from.




Such as.....  what? What are these other options, without going to spell slots?

See, what is annoying me here is that you are attributing negative traits to someone for picking this ability. They are "someone like that". No idea what you mean, but it is clearly negative. 

And, again, I'm repeating myself here, but I'm HAPPY with the change to it being a reaction. That's a good change and it eliminates basically all of your issues for how it reduces fun at the table. My issue is solely on limiting it to once per character per day. That is an insane restriction. And we have had multiple better ideas presented, but there is still this sense that Guidance at all is bad for the game, unless it is nerfed to the point that it might as well not exist.



fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Bless is bustedly good, but it costs slots and concentration, as you well know. It's certainly one of the abilities your support-oriented players might want to pick up, because at least there may be a moment's engagement with 'should I use a slot on this, at this time? but what if I want my concentration on that...' and boom, we are actually making decisions and playing a game.




And Guidance also cost concentration, but that never mattered which is why they got rid of it. 

Why are you so convinced that choosing Guidance and engaging with it is bad for the game? Seriously, you know who pays more attention to the rogue disarming the trap between the barbarian with nothing to do and the cleric with guidance? Sure, the cleric didn't have an existential crisis over choosing whether or not they can afford to use their ability in this moment, but they were certainly engaged and paying attention. Meanwhile, the barbarian is just waiting, because they have NOTHING to do. Which is better? Having nothing to do and therefore not caring, or having something to do, and knowing it will help, so you use it to help and participate? I know which I'd choose every single time.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> And isn't it a trade-off to take Guidance instead of something else? Why do I ALSO need to make more trade-offs? Making things more and more difficult to use effectively doesn't always make the game better and better, just more and more restrictive.




Well, I'm a little astonished to find that there's somebody who actually enjoyed that aspect of the game, but since you do, or did, I'm sorry for your loss.


----------



## FrogReaver

Guidance spam has never been a problem in our games, the spam part just doesn't happen.

I have a hard time understanding how there aren't fictional consequences for a character spending nearly every second of his waking life casting guidance.  And those consequences are typically going to make the decision to cast it or not a more tactical choice in many situations.

Social Skills - casting guidance may be deterimental to the social endeavor especially when done in the NPC's sight.
Stealth - if ally is scouting ahead then just call for the check when it actually matters.  If whole group is stealthing then apply disadvantage to the caster for making noise casting the spell.  Also, in general the character spamming guidance shouldn't be simultaneously scavenging for food or being alert for signs of danger, etc.  In many contexts having the extra independent action may prove more useful.


----------



## Stalker0

FrogReaver said:


> I have a hard time understanding how there aren't fictional consequences for a character spending nearly every second of his waking life casting guidance.  And those consequences are typically going to make the decision to cast it or not a more tactical choice in many situations.
> 
> Social Skills - casting guidance may be deterimental to the social endeavor especially when done in the NPC's sight.
> Stealth - if ally is scouting ahead then just call for the check when it actually matters.  If whole group is stealthing then apply disadvantage to the caster for making noise casting the spell.  Also, in general the character spamming guidance shouldn't be simultaneously scavenging for food or being alert for signs of danger, etc.  In many contexts having the extra independent action may prove more useful.



People often forget the 1 minute duration on guidance. You see a guard up ahead you want to persuade; cleric throws on a little guidance in the alleyway, bard steps out and does his little talk, gets a bonus.

Any kind of climbing, why wouldn't I put guidance on every single party member climbing up the rope?
Swim, same idea. If we all need to cross that body of water, why not throw on a guidance and have each person cross individually?
Knowledge checks, all day every day. Why on earth would I ever consult my memory on an important topic without a little holy memory tonic?
Rogue's about to check a statue for traps, of course a little guidance on top, it would almost be unholy not to help your friend check out a dangerous device!

Sure, there are checks where guidance won't or can't come up. Stealth is a common one, certain checks that happen in combat or our simultaneous. Yet there are MANY MANY MANY checks that are easy to get all guidance all the time on with a little bit of creative play....and yes fictionally its quite silly. So the idea of altering the mechanics so that Dms don't have to add in those little narrative fixes I am all for.


----------



## Kannik

Chaosmancer said:


> So, if someone takes dueling fighting style do you increase all monster hit points by +6? If someone takes archery fighting style, do you increase all AC by +2? These are also passive benefits that make all fights less challenging. If the group equips shields, do you increase monster to hits by +2?
> 
> The thing it sounds like you are saying here is "It is bad if the party has a way to make it easier to succeed on skill checks." But... why is that the case? Why is support play bad? After all, by choosing to make a character who does support, I'm not choosing to do other things. Why is that cost not good enough, and I also have to be limited and unable to consistently provide support like I can consistently provide utility or consistently provide damage?



Leaving aside my views on the archery fighting style, the key difference here for me is that those are happening during combat, where every character is going to acting in differing ways and with differing abilities, and having to make choices based on position, type of enemies, environment, and etc.  And if an entire party chooses to be fighters, rangers, and paladins with shields, then there are a myriad of things that they will face that will not be aided by those shields.

Conversely, guidance's main usage is outside of combat, where it can very often be employed sequentially, without consideration, and continually.  "But being support means I can't do other things" doesn't often apply out of combat except in unusual circumstances;  in fact you can even cast guidance (it lasts a minute), and then use the help action for a double bonus to the aided character.  Or you can cast guidance on another character then go off to climb a rope, talk to someone, pick a lock, or eat some bread.  



Chaosmancer said:


> But there still are choices. Sure, "do I use this ability I chose to take" isn't a choice, but that doesn't mean that suddenly there are no choices anywhere else. Why don't those count? Why do we need to make it so, effectively, the Help action if you have proficiency is the ONLY way to offer skill support unless you are a Bard?




Hey, I'm all for additional meaningful support choices being available to many classes -- that would be great!  4e as an example included support for supporting for many classes.  But for me, Guidance 2014 as written doesn't function in game as meaningful choice of support.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Stalker0 said:


> People often forget the 1 minute duration on guidance. You see a guard up ahead you want to persuade; cleric throws on a little guidance in the alleyway, bard steps out and does his little talk, gets a bonus.
> 
> Any kind of climbing, why wouldn't I put guidance on every single party member climbing up the rope?
> Swim, same idea. If we all need to cross that body of water, why not throw on a guidance and have each person cross individually?




Sorry for being a bit of a pendant, but this triggers me every single time. 

Why wouldn't you cast guidance for climbing a rope? Because you don't roll an ability check for climbing a rope. Unless the rope is covered in grease, you should never roll to climb a rope. Rolling to climb is for extreme climbing situations only. 

Why wouldn't you cast guidance to swim across a body of water? Because unless it is a rapid current, you never need to roll a check to swim. IF you are trying to swim across a lake whipped up by a storm, with serious waves, then you roll. If it is just a lake, you don't roll. 

And this puts it into a bit of context. You might not pray to the gods to help you climb a rope, but you may most certainly pray to them to climb a slick, ice-covered cliff while storm winds rage around you. Part of guidance spam could also be the tendency we as DMs have to call out the dice more often than we should. Climbing a rope or a wall shouldn't be a check, unless you want the check to be that they are climbing it at a greatly increased speed. 



Stalker0 said:


> Sure, there are checks where guidance won't or can't come up. Stealth is a common one, certain checks that happen in combat or our simultaneous. Yet there are MANY MANY MANY checks that are easy to get all guidance all the time on with a little bit of creative play....and yes fictionally its quite silly. So the idea of altering the mechanics so that Dms don't have to add in those little narrative fixes I am all for.




It is a little silly, but also, I know religious people who do pray to God every time they do anything they might not succeed on, but feel is important. 

I've seen a little guidance spam, but the most common time to see it is when the rolls feel the most important, which is also exactly when it makes the most narrative sense to ask the Gods for aid.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Kannik said:


> Leaving aside my views on the archery fighting style, the key difference here for me is that those are happening during combat, where every character is going to acting in differing ways and with differing abilities, and having to make choices based on position, type of enemies, environment, and etc.  And if an entire party chooses to be fighters, rangers, and paladins with shields, then there are a myriad of things that they will face that will not be aided by those shields.
> 
> Conversely, guidance's main usage is outside of combat, where it can very often be employed sequentially, without consideration, and continually.  "But being support means I can't do other things" doesn't often apply out of combat except in unusual circumstances;  in fact you can even cast guidance (it lasts a minute), and then use the help action for a double bonus to the aided character.  Or you can cast guidance on another character then go off to climb a rope, talk to someone, pick a lock, or eat some bread.
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm all for additional meaningful support choices being available to many classes -- that would be great!  4e as an example included support for supporting for many classes.  But for me, Guidance 2014 as written doesn't function in game as meaningful choice of support.




So is the solution to nerf out of combat support into the ground, or is it to offer more types of things we can do out of combat to contribute? 

I think what you are noticing is the fact that there is only a single system in place for every single thing out of combat. Roll a d20 and add modifiers. Nothing else matters, nothing else is tracked, unlike combat where there are multiple types of dice and multiple factors to success. And when you have a very simple system, anything that can be leveraged to aid that system is very simple as well. 

If we are dead set on not wanting a +modifer to skill checks at-will, the only other thing would be to give advantage. Those are the only two factors to skill checks. Modifier and the d20. But I don't think it is realistic to propose overhauling the entire skill system into something more complex that can handle multiple different types of bonuses. I think that is too ambitious, but I also don't want to see out-of-combat support not exist.


----------



## Willie the Duck

FrogReaver said:


> Guidance spam has never been a problem in our games, the spam part just doesn't happen.
> 
> I have a hard time understanding how there aren't fictional consequences for a character spending nearly every second of his waking life casting guidance.  And those consequences are typically going to make the decision to cast it or not a more tactical choice in many situations.



At the same time, I've seen several rollicking reddit debates where people act incredulous that anyone else believes someone couldn't (and wouldn't) have guidance going every waking moment except maybe stealth situations*. I think that divergence is likely what the devs are responding to -- if part of the gaming population thinks of it as effectively a static always-on +1d4 to most skill checks and others think of it as a clutch-time boost, there might be room for improvement in how the spells works.
*social situations the argument being along the lines of 'why would anyone find it odd if a religious individual says a little prayer before entering a negotiation?'


Stalker0 said:


> yes fictionally its quite silly. So the idea of altering the mechanics so that Dms don't have to add in those little narrative fixes I am all for.



I mean, that's it. This is a playtest for modifying the game. This is the perfect time for looking at anything that is giving trouble and saying 'I find the way this is working to be silly/disruptive/unrealistic/overpowered/underpowered/stepping on some other characters toes/anything else. Instead, can we get the same broad concept (and maybe same name, to make clear that this is replacing that), but with a different implementation.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> Sorry for being a bit of a pendant, but this triggers me every single time.




_Actually_…it’s “pedant”. 

(That one was irresistible.)


----------



## Bill Zebub

As for Archery fighting style, it would be comparable if it affected everyone in the party, but only if the player blurted out “I cast Archery style!” every time somebody took a shot.


----------



## Stalker0

Chaosmancer said:


> Sorry for being a bit of a pendant, but this triggers me every single time.
> 
> Why wouldn't you cast guidance for climbing a rope? Because you don't roll an ability check for climbing a rope. Unless the rope is covered in grease, you should never roll to climb a rope. Rolling to climb is for extreme climbing situations only.
> 
> Why wouldn't you cast guidance to swim across a body of water? Because unless it is a rapid current, you never need to roll a check to swim. IF you are trying to swim across a lake whipped up by a storm, with serious waves, then you roll. If it is just a lake, you don't roll.



Sure, replace rope with mountain climb, replace calm lake with weird oily viscous liquid, etc etc. The point is still made, there are many checks that PCs make that they can spam guidance on.

Guidance remains one of the best cantrips in the game, and I'd argue the best spells because of its ubiquity. Even this new version I would always take with my cleric, not even a question.


----------



## Bill Zebub

In general out-of-combat abilities are harder to design (design well, anyway) because in-combat there is always the minimum trade-off of the opportunity cost. Even the fully buffed and optimized rogue with no expendable resources has to choose to attack _instead of doing something else_.

Out of combat, if a player’s rationalization is “I might as well…no harm in trying” and game mechanics are invoked as a result, in my opinion something either wasn’t designed well or isn’t being used correctly. (YMMV, no need for anybody to explode in righteous indignation.)


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Stalker0 said:


> Sure, replace rope with mountain climb, replace calm lake with weird oily viscous liquid, etc etc. The point is still made, there are many checks that PCs make that they can spam guidance on.
> 
> Guidance remains one of the best cantrips in the game, and I'd argue the best spells because of its ubiquity. Even this new version I would always take with my cleric, not even a question.



I would take this version also but I would not bother with the fiddly restriction, I do not see the need to fuss about spamming it. Worse things could be done.


----------



## Bill Zebub

UngainlyTitan said:


> I would take this version also but I would not bother with the fiddly restriction, I do not see the need to fuss about spamming it. Worse things could be done.




Is “worse things could be done” a good reason to not talk about ways things could be even better?

IMO anything less than awesome is worthy of being tinkered with. It’s the sputtering outrage I don’t understand.

(And I realize in this case what you are saying is that you’ll take spam over fiddly as the lesser of two evils.)


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Bill Zebub said:


> Is “worse things could be done” a good reason to not talk about ways things could be even better?
> 
> IMO anything less than awesome is worthy of being tinkered with. It’s the sputtering outrage I don’t understand.
> 
> (And I realize in this case what you are saying is that you’ll take spam over fiddly as the lesser of two evils.)



This is a proposal for a game test.  I never saw guidance spam in games I played but by all means give you feedback in the playtest. Guidance is not even on topic for the thread and not worth the amount of bandwidth and electrons spent on it. IMHO and YMMV and all that .


----------



## Kobold Stew

Has it been suggested that the loss of -5/+10 to the GWM and SS feats is because this is now going to be a default ability, either in combat generally, or for the Warrior class specifically? 

Maybe they're planning on letting anyone do this, without needing a feat, and that's why it's not in the playtest. I think we just don't know enough about DD1 yet to know for sure.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Kobold Stew said:


> Has it been suggested that the loss of -5/+10 to the GWM and SS feats is because this is now going to be a default ability, either in combat generally, or for the Warrior class specifically?
> 
> Maybe they're planning on letting anyone do this, without needing a feat, and that's why it's not in the playtest. I think we just don't know enough about DD1 yet to know for sure.




It has been suggested by people here, including me, but not (as far as I've heard) by anybody who is anybody.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Stalker0 said:


> Sure, replace rope with mountain climb, replace calm lake with weird oily viscous liquid, etc etc. The point is still made, there are many checks that PCs make that they can spam guidance on.
> 
> Guidance remains one of the best cantrips in the game, and I'd argue the best spells because of its ubiquity. Even this new version I would always take with my cleric, not even a question.




But that ubiquity is now gone. Use it on the mountain climb, and you won't be able to use it on the check to unlock the door, or the stealth check, or the persuasion check. Unless you have the people who are doing those door, stealth or persuasion checks all succeeding on the mountain climb. 

And this is actually a good example, because the bard is pretty likely to fail that Athletics check, but they may want to have that guidance when they are the ones using Persuasion to prevent a fight with the Frost Giant's they find above. And I don't like this feeling that the spell can only help someone once. It doesn't even guarantee a success, it only gives a chance of success if you barely fail. If it was "turn a failed skill check into a success" then I would be able to at least see that it was very powerful, but this isn't that.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Kobold Stew said:


> Has it been suggested that the loss of -5/+10 to the GWM and SS feats is because this is now going to be a default ability, either in combat generally, or for the Warrior class specifically?
> 
> Maybe they're planning on letting anyone do this, without needing a feat, and that's why it's not in the playtest. I think we just don't know enough about DD1 yet to know for sure.




That's the idea out there. And I've been considering doing the -prof, +x2prof damage version as just a general rule for called shots. 

I always have people trying to do called shots, and this makes it way easier to handle that.


----------



## Stalker0

Chaosmancer said:


> But that ubiquity is now gone. Use it on the mountain climb, and you won't be able to use it on the check to unlock the door, or the stealth check, or the persuasion check. Unless you have the people who are doing those door, stealth or persuasion checks all succeeding on the mountain climb.
> 
> And this is actually a good example, because the bard is pretty likely to fail that Athletics check, but they may want to have that guidance when they are the ones using Persuasion to prevent a fight with the Frost Giant's they find above. And I don't like this feeling that the spell can only help someone once. It doesn't even guarantee a success, it only gives a chance of success if you barely fail. If it was "turn a failed skill check into a success" then I would be able to at least see that it was very powerful, but this isn't that.



I see that as nothing but a good, its a CANTRIP, but it was boosting skills by an average greater than 8 levels of character growth! (8!!!). It should be a bit rarer and more conservative. The idea that a caster might actually have to consider when to use guidance, rather than just spam it like a crazy person...that is an absolute breath of fresh air to me.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Stalker0 said:


> I see that as nothing but a good, its a CANTRIP, but it was boosting skills by an average greater than 8 levels of character growth! (8!!!). It should be a bit rarer and more conservative. The idea that a caster might actually have to consider when to use guidance, rather than just spam it like a crazy person...that is an absolute breath of fresh air to me.




And the Help action boosts skills by an average of 20 levels of character growth. 20!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Should we make that even rarer and more conservative? 

It is a +2.5. Yes, a +2.5 is good, but you can't exactly get much lower. And this sure is never an argument in combat, we can see damage boosted by an average of 4.5 (nearly double) and think "meh. it is okay" but skills being boosted by half that are so terribly unbalanced? 

I have never, before this thread, heard that guidance is far too powerful and breaks the game. I've heard that it is troubling it can stack with a series of other effects and make a single skill check easy to succeed, and I've heard that it is spammed constantly and that is annoying, but never that it is overpowered and broken by itself. 

And I still don't get why it has to be that a caster "needs to consider" whether or not to use it. A caster never has to "consider" if they are using Mage Hand to grab something, they just do it. They never need to consider if they use their attack cantrip, they just do it, unless they want to use something STRONGER. And, as has been discussed, there aren't any leveled spells that really apply in the same way Guidance does. The only one I can think of is Enhance Ability, but that isn't "should I use Guidance or not" it is "Should I use Enhance Ability or not". Guidance is the weak at-will version. I shouldn't have to consider whether or not I use it any more than I should have to consider whether I use minor illusion to make an illusion, spare the dying to stabilize someone, or an attack cantrip to attack someone.


----------



## Horwath

Kobold Stew said:


> Has it been suggested that the loss of -5/+10 to the GWM and SS feats is because this is now going to be a default ability, either in combat generally, or for the Warrior class specifically?
> 
> Maybe they're planning on letting anyone do this, without needing a feat, and that's why it's not in the playtest. I think we just don't know enough about DD1 yet to know for sure.



General rule or a half-feat could be:

-1 attack / +2 damage
at 5th level: -2/+4
at 11th level -3/+6
at 17th level -4/+8


----------



## jasper

Kai Lord said:


> I guess I'm in the minority but I actually don't like this change. Yes +10 damage is a big hike but at low levels the -5 often translates to missing entirely and at higher levels the +10 is offset by higher monster HP's and all the high damage ranged attacks that spellcasters get to dish out.
> 
> Thinking back to the Vox Machina Vecna fight with Vecna's high AC I seem to recall Percy having to really gamble whether Sharpshooter would allow him to land a hit or not. _shrugs_ But like I said I really seem to be in the minority on this one.



Once you hit tier 2 the -5 really does NOT come into affect  unless the monster AC is 19+. Especially if players remember the -5.

Edited. MISSED THE NOT.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold

I like the change, but I am going to be keeping a very close eye on the development of the other classes. 
I do not regard the changes as "Making martials weaker", just making a couple of specific builds of martials more in line with the others. 
Hopefully now martials can be balanced against other classes without the assumption that an optimised build capable of multiple times more damage is the baseline to balance against.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> And the Help action boosts skills by an average of 20 levels of character growth. 20!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Should we make that even rarer and more conservative?




Yes, obviously.


----------



## tetrasodium

jasper said:


> Once you hit tier 2 the -5 really does come into affect  unless the monster AC is 19+. Especially if players remember the -5.



No it really doesn't.  Few things have high enough ac to matter & that gets worse as soon as the gm starts giving out magic items because they are expected in d&d.


Chaosmancer said:


> And the Help action boosts skills by an average of 20 levels of character growth. 20!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Should we make that even rarer and more conservative?
> 
> It is a +2.5. Yes, a +2.5 is good, but you can't exactly get much lower. And this sure is never an argument in combat, we can see damage boosted by an average of 4.5 (nearly double) and think "meh. it is okay" but skills being boosted by half that are so terribly unbalanced?
> 
> I have never, before this thread, heard that guidance is far too powerful and breaks the game. I've heard that it is troubling it can stack with a series of other effects and make a single skill check easy to succeed, and I've heard that it is spammed constantly and that is annoying, but never that it is overpowered and broken by itself.
> 
> And I still don't get why it has to be that a caster "needs to consider" whether or not to use it. A caster never has to "consider" if they are using Mage Hand to grab something, they just do it. They never need to consider if they use their attack cantrip, they just do it, unless they want to use something STRONGER. And, as has been discussed, there aren't any leveled spells that really apply in the same way Guidance does. The only one I can think of is Enhance Ability, but that isn't "should I use Guidance or not" it is "Should I use Enhance Ability or not". Guidance is the weak at-will version. I shouldn't have to consider whether or not I use it any more than I should have to consider whether I use minor illusion to make an illusion, spare the dying to stabilize someone, or an attack cantrip to attack someone.



Help IS restricted some in the new glossary & it's a good change.  It's explicitly an action & players need to be proficient in the same skill alongside being close enough to help.

The fact that what things like help & guidance create such massive escalation in skills as your post  illustrates is evidence of why guidance advantage & expertise is such a trainwreck in a system designed arounds bounded accuracy.  You doing that while painting them as critical  through this thread is good evidence for why many GMs have such dislike of them.   There is not enough room in the math for the gm to add cool stuff that interacts with skills in a system so rife with overuse of Maslow's law/law of the hammer with advantage on top of a system already so stacked in favor of success by Bounded Accuracy before adding all the little one off mods that almost always lean the stacking even further... Tossing expertise into the mix just adds rocket boots to the collapse thrown in the gm's lap  5.5/6e needs to do much better than 2014 5e did so far.


----------



## Chaosmancer

I did see someone responding about how these changes to the martial feats are more about keeping things in line than nerfing martials. 

One thing I am curious about is how that applies to the changes to the Dual-Wielding Feat, which lost both the +1 AC but also the ability to dual-wield two non-light weapons. It isn't a big change to damage, but it is strange they chose to remove it.


----------



## tetrasodium

Chaosmancer said:


> I did see someone responding about how these changes to the martial feats are more about keeping things in line than nerfing martials.
> 
> One thing I am curious about is how that applies to the changes to the Dual-Wielding Feat, which lost both the +1 AC but also the ability to dual-wield two non-light weapons. It isn't a big change to damage, but it is strange they chose to remove it.



It's all part of a larger trend.  For example... Right now we have things like heavy armor master because heavy armor is limited to certain classes & other classes that sacrifice something _(feat/armor limited abilities/an archetype that doesn't give a loophole/a level in something else/etc)_.    Weapons can't really have that sort of "this is appropriate here but not there" in 5e.A big part of why weapons can't have that kind of thing is the fact that 5e has all of these edge cases where it's trivially simple to wield weapons from basket A in basket B scenarios.  With these sort of shifts stuff like that becomes possible. 

Also don't look at things in isolation like you are, characters are the combined sum of everything they bring to the table not one specific isolated footnote in an ability.  At level _one_ a dual wielding ranger or bard can do 4d6+dex damage per round with starting gear & they haven't even gotten archetype abilities yet.  "dual wielder can't use dual d8 weapons now" is hardly a concern in that light because they don't need it.  Instead we now have room for more impressive martial weapons other than "but muh rapier" & by extension non-light weapons can have properties or enchantments that would be ill fitting to be multiplied each round by dual wielding.


----------



## Chaosmancer

tetrasodium said:


> Help IS restricted some in the new glossary & it's a good change.  It's explicitly an action & players need to be proficient in the same skill alongside being close enough to help.




So two people trying to break open a chest is just as effective as one person? I've often found that two people trying to move an object are better than one, and we aren't trained movers. 

It makes sense for SOME skill checks to require proficiency, but those are all the same ones that should require proficiency to roll in the first place. 



tetrasodium said:


> The fact that what things like help & guidance create such massive escalation in skills as your post  illustrates is evidence of why guidance advantage & expertise is such a trainwreck in a system designed arounds bounded accuracy.  You doing that while painting them as critical  through this thread is good evidence for why many GMs have such dislike of them.   There is not enough room in the math for the gm to add cool stuff that interacts with skills in a system so rife with overuse of Maslow's law/law of the hammer with advantage on top of a system already so stacked in favor of success by Bounded Accuracy before adding all the little one off mods that almost always lean the stacking even further... Tossing expertise into the mix just adds rocket boots to the collapse thrown in the gm's lap  5.5/6e needs to do much better than 2014 5e did so far.




That sounds like a fundamental problem with skills, not something that should be fixed by taking the only methods of interacting with the system's math and removing them. I'd rather have something that allows a style of play, than eliminate an entire style of play.


----------



## Kobold Stew

Chaosmancer said:


> One thing I am curious about is how that applies to the changes to the Dual-Wielding Feat, which lost both the +1 AC but also the ability to dual-wield two non-light weapons. It isn't a big change to damage, but it is strange they chose to remove it.



Dual Weilder, to my eye, is one of the 4-th-level feats that suffers with the +1 ASI. If that were lost, then the +1 AC would still make sense. But since each +2 to DEX gives (effectively) +1 AC and +1 damate (which is the damage the extra non-light weapon gives), I tin kit would be too much to keep either. (I've suggested elsewhere that I think cutting the dual rapier is also aesthetically preferable, though not all agree.)


----------



## Chaosmancer

tetrasodium said:


> It's all part of a larger trend.  For example... Right now we have things like heavy armor master because heavy armor is limited to certain classes & other classes that sacrifice something _(feat/armor limited abilities/an archetype that doesn't give a loophole/a level in something else/etc)_.    Weapons can't really have that sort of "this is appropriate here but not there" in 5e.A big part of why weapons can't have that kind of thing is the fact that 5e has all of these edge cases where it's trivially simple to wield weapons from basket A in basket B scenarios.  With these sort of shifts stuff like that becomes possible.




How is this in any way a problem? If you gain access to using a weapon, you can use it. You don't have to have limits on when you can use it. 



tetrasodium said:


> Also don't look at things in isolation like you are, characters are the combined sum of everything they bring to the table not one specific isolated footnote in an ability.  At level _one_ a dual wielding ranger or bard can do 4d6+dex damage per round with starting gear & they haven't even gotten archetype abilities yet.  "dual wielder can't use dual d8 weapons now" is hardly a concern in that light because they don't need it.  Instead we now have room for more impressive martial weapons other than "but muh rapier" & by extension non-light weapons can have properties or enchantments that would be ill fitting to be multiplied each round by dual wielding.




And at level 11 4d6+dex mod isn't nearly as impressive when the paladin can do 4d8+4+str mod x2. 

Also, every dual-wielder except the fighter only gets three attacks, if it is wrong for them use the ability three times per round... then it would be inappropriate for the fighter to have access to them at all, because the Fighter can make 6 attacks in a round. 

Finally, complaining about the rapier is kind of silly, because it isn't like it allows for any damage that can't be done by a longsword, battleaxe or a warhammer. The only reason I was able to list three weapons is because three nearly identical weapons were made for that slot. If you want more d8 Finesse weapons, make them, then everyone won't just use the rapier.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Kobold Stew said:


> Dual Weilder, to my eye, is one of the 4-th-level feats that suffers with the +1 ASI. If that were lost, then the +1 AC would still make sense. But since each +2 to DEX gives (effectively) +1 AC and +1 damate (which is the damage the extra non-light weapon gives), I tin kit would be too much to keep either. (I've suggested elsewhere that I think cutting the dual rapier is also aesthetically preferable, though not all agree.)



There's no reason they couldn't give TWF an ability like 
Rend: if you hit a target with both your main hand weapon and your offhand in the same activation they take proficiency modifier bonus damage. This damage may only be dealt once per target per turn.​I suspect after playtesting it would just end up as two attacks  while armed with two weapons as that's simpler. Or possibly "for every two attacks" to enable shenanigans with haste or fighter level numbers of attacks (or monk flurries). I'd say it was balanced against nu!GWF with that. But right now it needs a little more of a kick than it has.

Hmm... I'm now considering a rogue dual wielding throwing daggers/darts with the Skulker and Dual Wielder feats.


----------



## tetrasodium

Chaosmancer said:


> So two people trying to break open a chest is just as effective as one person? I've often found that two people trying to move an object are better than one, and we aren't trained movers.
> 
> It makes sense for SOME skill checks to require proficiency, but those are all the same ones that should require proficiency to roll in the first place.




What are you talking about?  The new mechanic for the  help action is: _"Assist Ability Check. Choose one of your Skill Proficiencies and one ally who can see or hear you. You give Advantage to the *next* Ability Check that ally makes with the chosen Skill. This benefit expires if the ally doesn’t use it before the start of your next turn. To give this assistance, you must be near enough to the ally to assist verbally or physically when the ally makes the check. The DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible."_
*Two people are still more effective* when they work together but now they need to work together instead of the second providing the moral support of their character effectively waving a cocktail while channeling ralph wiggum to say "I'm helping".



Chaosmancer said:


> That sounds like a fundamental problem with skills, not something that should be fixed by taking the only methods of interacting with the system's math and removing them. I'd rather have something that allows a style of play, than eliminate an entire style of play.



It _is_ a fundamental problem with skills.  They can't start fixing it until they clean up the spinning knives like "I'm helping" as a reaction & "I cast guidance" spam.  New tools like the revised help/guidance before we have changes elsewhere but the other way around would be harder to test given the number of missing pieces we have



Chaosmancer said:


> How is this in any way a problem? If you gain access to using a weapon, you can use it. You don't have to have limits on when you can use it.
> 
> 
> 
> And at level 11 4d6+dex mod isn't nearly as impressive when the paladin can do 4d8+4+str mod x2.
> 
> Also, every dual-wielder except the fighter only gets three attacks, if it is wrong for them use the ability three times per round... then it would be inappropriate for the fighter to have access to them at all, because the Fighter can make 6 attacks in a round.
> 
> Finally, complaining about the rapier is kind of silly, because it isn't like it allows for any damage that can't be done by a longsword, battleaxe or a warhammer. The only reason I was able to list three weapons is because three nearly identical weapons were made for that slot. If you want more d8 Finesse weapons, make them, then everyone won't just use the rapier.



It is quite impressive when it can be done every round for an hour at level 1 & that quickly scales up to 8-24 hours.  I don't point that out as some kind of outrage so much as to show how much the "muh rapiers" outrage is unreasonable  As to the paladin it doesn't do anything right now because we don't have the packet with a new paladin yet.


----------



## Stalker0

tetrasodium said:


> At level _one_ a dual wielding ranger or bard can do 4d6+dex damage per round with starting gear & they haven't even gotten archetype abilities yet.



6d6+dex if you go magic initiate (hex), though only in the 2nd round of combat onward.


----------



## tetrasodium

Stalker0 said:


> 6d6+dex if you go magic initiate (hex), though only in the 2nd round of combat onward.



I noticed & made note of it in my ranger dive yea.  I decided that it wasn't justified including as an example of the base class itself being extremely solid & left it out of #202 though.  I'm kind of excited to see what other changes we see in the next packet


----------



## Chaosmancer

tetrasodium said:


> What are you talking about?  The new mechanic for the  help action is: _"Assist Ability Check. Choose one of your Skill Proficiencies and one ally who can see or hear you. You give Advantage to the *next* Ability Check that ally makes with the chosen Skill. This benefit expires if the ally doesn’t use it before the start of your next turn. To give this assistance, you must be near enough to the ally to assist verbally or physically when the ally makes the check. The DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible."_
> *Two people are still more effective* when they work together but now they need to work together instead of the second providing the moral support of their character effectively waving a cocktail while channeling ralph wiggum to say "I'm helping".




"Choose one of your Skill Proficiencies" 

Meaning you have to choose something you are proficient in, if you are not proficient in Athletics, you can't assist. That doesn't mean you aren't able to physically assist, you can, but Athletics is not one of your Skill Proficiencies, so you cannot grant advantage.



tetrasodium said:


> It _is_ a fundamental problem with skills.  They can't start fixing it until they clean up the spinning knives like "I'm helping" as a reaction & "I cast guidance" spam.  New tools like the revised help/guidance before we have changes elsewhere but the other way around would be harder to test given the number of missing pieces we have




Help action was never a formal reaction, but it was used that way and still will be even with these new rules. Because that had nothing to do with the rules of the game, and everything to do with how people play at the table. 

And... yeah, they totally CAN fix the fundamental level of the skill system without first removing every ability to interact with it. Game design isn't like spinning knives or juggling, you can take out any part, and it makes FAR more sense to start at the fundamental level and change outward, because otherwise you are just doubling your work.



tetrasodium said:


> It is quite impressive when it can be done every round for an hour at level 1 & that quickly scales up to 8-24 hours.  I don't point that out as some kind of outrage so much as to show how much the "muh rapiers" outrage is unreasonable  As to the paladin it doesn't do anything right now because we don't have the packet with a new paladin yet.




Except we know that we are supposed to be using the older versions of the classes, and looking at how little the rogue and bard changed, there is little reason to think the paladin changed that fundamentally. 

Additionally, I don't care if you do get to do it for 24 hours, it still isn't that impressive. Here, let me show you again. High level ranger, without a subclass, and the new feat, three attacks for a total of 2d8+4d6+dex x 3... compared to a high level fighter, no subclass, the GWM feat, 8d6+strx4+prof bonus + re-rolling 1's and 2's. Also, btw, able to be done for 24-hours, without spending a spell slot. 

Also, why the heck are we trying to argue level 1 balance for a LEVEL 4 feat? This feat's design doesn't affect level 1 in any way shape or form, it is entirely unrelated.


----------



## tetrasodium

Chaosmancer said:


> *"Choose one of your Skill Proficiencies"
> 
> Meaning you have to choose something you are proficient in, if you are not proficient in Athletics, you can't assist. That doesn't mean you aren't able to physically assist, you can, but Athletics is not one of your Skill Proficiencies, so you cannot grant advantage.*
> 
> 
> Help action was never a formal reaction, but it was used that way and still will be even with these new rules. Because that had nothing to do with the rules of the game, and everything to do with how people play at the table.
> 
> And... yeah, they totally CAN fix the fundamental level of the skill system without first removing every ability to interact with it. Game design isn't like spinning knives or juggling, you can take out any part, and it makes FAR more sense to start at the fundamental level and change outward, because otherwise you are just doubling your work.
> 
> 
> 
> Except we know that we are supposed to be using the older versions of the classes, and looking at how little the rogue and bard changed, there is little reason to think the paladin changed that fundamentally.
> 
> Additionally, I don't care if you do get to do it for 24 hours, it still isn't that impressive. Here, let me show you again. High level ranger, without a subclass, and the new feat, three attacks for a total of 2d8+4d6+dex x 3... compared to a high level fighter, no subclass, the GWM feat, 8d6+strx4+prof bonus + re-rolling 1's and 2's. Also, btw, able to be done for 24-hours, without spending a spell slot.
> 
> Also, why the heck are we trying to argue level 1 balance for a LEVEL 4 feat? This feat's design doesn't affect level 1 in any way shape or form, it is entirely unrelated.



 Back in post 200 I literally said "players need to be proficient in the same skill" & in 207 I quoted the mechanic itself, why are you echoing what's already been said as if pointing out something unnoticed?  It's pure good that players in that situation without proficiency in the same skill need to convince the gm how some other proficiency or some other thing should be allowed to work for _this_ help action rather than the players being salty because the gm refused to allow it or because the GM wanted more than "and I help".

The help action being a codified action is part of a trend where a number of things now have codified actions the GM can choose to handwave or make an exception to rather than a vague unfilled outline the gm needs to browbeat the players with using questions like "do you want to use your action for that."  Game design for a functional skill system is heavy in math, "rulings not rules" & 5e's collection of never ending unintended edge cases thrown to the gm to fix causes a lot of these problems the GM is left to fix or build around with consequences.

Did you not take the time to read the class?  Hunters mark is cast with a first level slot with no concentration for one hour at level 1 for the new ranger giving them +1d6 each time the ranger damages the marked target.  With a third & 5th level slot that jumps to 8 hours & 24 hours.  Ranger gets those at levels higher than first at higher levels, no 4th level feat needed.   Higher level ranger gets all kinds of things yes, the bard getting hex & ranger getting hunters mark variation was an example of why the outrage over not being able to dual wield rapiers was not reasonable.


----------



## Chaosmancer

tetrasodium said:


> Back in post 200 I literally said "players need to be proficient in the same skill" & in 207 I quoted the mechanic itself, why are you echoing what's already been said as if pointing out something unnoticed?  It's pure good that players in that situation without proficiency in the same skill need to convince the gm how some other proficiency or some other thing should be allowed to work for _this_ help action rather than the players being salty because the gm refused to allow it or because the GM wanted more than "and I help".




So, two players, unproficient in Athletics, cannot work together to move things and make it easier. The exact complaint I made, to which you responded "What are you talking about?" and posted the rules. And now that I've clarified... you knew exactly what I was talking about? 

And, most of your reasoning that this change is "purely good" has nothing to do with the mechanics, and everything to do with the interaction between the player and the DM. With the old rules I often asked people "How do you help" and I often refused to let them use the Help action on things like "Can I roll Arcana to see if I know X" because I couldn't justify other player helping them know something. And if the player in question had a good reason to help... then I let them. In fact, this entire issue ISN'T solved by the proficiency, but is instead solved by "_To give this assistance, you must be near enough to the ally to assist verbally or physically when the ally makes the check. " _Which is a clarification I'm completely for.

But having the player try and justify why they can use Persuasion to offer assistance instead of just physically aiding the person trying to move the thing is utterly ridiculous. If they want to do it, fine, but requiring it? There is no sense to it. Now, again, if the player in question is say attempting to perform surgery, I'd be perfectly fine requiring proficiency in Medicine to perform the Help action. That is an advanced skill, but I also would have required Proficiency in Medicine to begin the check in the first place. Meanwhile, I don't require proficiency in Athletics to attempt to pick up things, or break down doors, so why would I require it to aid those actions? Simply to force the player to say that they use Religion to give a sermon on hardwork to inspire their ally? No, both of you shoulder charge the door at the same time, advantage. Easy and done.  



tetrasodium said:


> The help action being a codified action is part of a trend where a number of things now have codified actions the GM can choose to handwave or make an exception to rather than a vague unfilled outline the gm needs to browbeat the players with using questions like "do you want to use your action for that."  Game design for a functional skill system is heavy in math, "rulings not rules" & 5e's collection of never ending unintended edge cases thrown to the gm to fix causes a lot of these problems the GM is left to fix or build around with consequences.




And this doesn't change any of that in the slightest. All it does is force people to adapt to more restrictions, but no restrictions that actually prevent the type of situations that the GM would be forced to contend with. And again, this line in the rules covers that 100%, the need for proficiency doesn't "_The DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible."_



tetrasodium said:


> Did you not take the time to read the class?




You know, accusing your interlocutor of ignorance is never a good way to start.



tetrasodium said:


> Hunters mark is cast with a first level slot with no concentration for one hour at level 1 for the new ranger giving them +1d6 each time the ranger damages the marked target.  With a third & 5th level slot that jumps to 8 hours & 24 hours.  Ranger gets those at levels higher than first at higher levels, no 4th level feat needed.




What does any of this have to do with a 4th level feat? Third level spell slots come online for the ranger at 9th level. Fifth level slots come on at 17th level. 

So, if I understand your issue, at 1st level, the ranger can deal 4d6+dex mod. This is decently high, and by level 17 they can do this for 24 hours. Which means that at level four you can't let them have a feat that changes some of those dice to d8's? Meanwhile, I compared this spell and the new feat, active for 24 hours at level 17, to a fighter with a different new feat, with no spell at all, so therefore active for 24 hours, and showed that the other feat is stronger and therefore it wouldn't be broken to unnerf the feat. 

None of your replies make any coherent sense, meanwhile you keep insulting me, like I don't understand the mechanics I am trying to discuss. Let's try to make this simpler, once again. 

The damage from Dual-Wielding, once you hit level 5, is no longer that impressive. Yes, at level 1, it is. However, nothing about the balance of a level 4 feat applies to level 1, because you cannot have a level 4 feat at level 1. And this has been a known problem with dual-wielding for a long time, I'm not exactly breaking new ground by noting that Dual-Wielding often struggles to be as strong as other options. There was no reason for the de-buff that you cannot dual-wield non-light weapons. It doesn't address the parts of the combat style that could potentially be a problem, and it is an unnecessary restriction. Let people do it, it doesn't make the style too powerful.



tetrasodium said:


> Higher level ranger gets all kinds of things yes, the bard getting hex & ranger getting hunters mark variation was an example of why the outrage over not being able to dual wield rapiers was not reasonable.




You keep bringing up dual-rapiers like it is some sort of holy grail that I am lusting after. I'm actually more upset that I can't dual-wield battleaxes. By the way, how does my fighter or barbarian (who have the same fighting style and the same new feat) matter towards spells for the bard or the ranger? 

Look, you despise rapiers, I get it. Solution? Build more weapons that are finesse, one-handed, and deal 1d8 damage. The only reason the Rapier is so ubiquitous is because it is the only option. Seriously, take a look at the weapons. 

*One-handed Strength weapon* -> 15 weapons ranging from 1d4 to 1d8 (some are versatile, giving access to 1d10). At that high end, where the 1d8 is? You have SIX options, 2/5ths of all the options are at the high end

*Two-handed Strength weapon* -> 7 weapons, ranging from 1d8 to 1d12, and actually there is only one that is 1d8 (the greatclub) all of the others are either 1d10, 2d6, or 1d12.

*One-handed Finesse Weapon* -> 5 weapons, ranging from 1d4 to 1d8. This is a third of the options for strength, two of them are 1d4 (the dagger and the whip), two of them are 1d6 swords (scimitar and shortsword) and the last one is the rapier. 

*Two-handed Finesse weapon* -> Zero options. 

So, why are rapiers ubiquitous? Why does every dex-melee build use the same weapons? Because there are only five choices, and only one of them is a 1d8. And if you don't have access to martial weapons... you literally only get daggers, that's it. They are the only finesse melee weapon for simple weapons. And if you don't want to deal 1d6, you get a rapier because you literally have no other choice. 

Add more weapons, like you have for strength, and you will have people choosing other options.


----------



## Stalker0

Chaosmancer said:


> So, two players, unproficient in Athletics, cannot work together to move things and make it easier.



This is the price for bounded accuracy. Flavor wise, they might be helping each other, but not enough to grant "advantage", and since 5e doesn't normally apply smaller bonuses, it doesn't factor in mechanically.

Same way with things like higher ground that used to be a +1 or flanking at +2, a lot of things were loss in the interest of a streamlined bounded accuracy game. I don't know why having two people that are schlubs in athletics have to get a bonus in this system, especially advantage which is practically a +4-+5.

I am playing a game right now where I actually use this requirement on help, and players still use the action all the time, just not all ALL the time I've got a player who has some knowledge skills but not a high int, so he commonly will help the big knowledge people rather than roll.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Stalker0 said:


> This is the price for bounded accuracy. Flavor wise, they might be helping each other, but not enough to grant "advantage", and since 5e doesn't normally apply smaller bonuses, it doesn't factor in mechanically.
> 
> Same way with things like higher ground that used to be a +1 or flanking at +2, a lot of things were loss in the interest of a streamlined bounded accuracy game. I don't know why having two people that are schlubs in athletics have to get a bonus in this system, especially advantage which is practically a +4-+5.
> 
> I am playing a game right now where I actually use this requirement on help, and players still use the action all the time, just not all ALL the time I've got a player who has some knowledge skills but not a high int, so he commonly will help the big knowledge people rather than roll.




Funny how this WASN'T the price for bounded accuracy before. Pretty much your entire defense of this decision is based off factors that were true for the old version as well. So, what has changed? Bounded accuracy is the same, so why have we decided that an extra pair of hands is no longer enough help to grant advantage? 

And your point about the person with the knowledge skill only emphasises my point. I still wouldn't allow someone to help another person think. It just doesn't make sense to me, sorry, but per the rules I could have someone with Performance sing a "thinking song" and grant advantage. It is a Skill Proficiency that they have, and the target can hear them. It fits every box except the DM saying it is okay. And this can be done for EVERY. SINGLE. CHECK. The only thing that will stop it is the DM saying no. So, how is this different than not needing a skill proficiency and it only being stopped by the DM saying no?


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Chaosmancer said:


> So, two players, unproficient in Athletics, cannot work together to move things and make it easier.




Two Things: 

1) If they can carry the thing, why would you make them roll? Is there a meaningful consequence for failure?
2) If you think they should have advantage, give 'em advantage. This isn't really a situation where someone is using a skill and another is helping them. This is a matter of two people carrying an object. (It doesn't entirely fall under ability checks, unless you want it to - it falls under encumbrance). But if you want to just judge that the weaker one is giving the stronger one advantage, just do it. (Heck, personally I would just have them both roll STR, and allow the higher result to stand for the test.)


----------



## Chaosmancer

FitzTheRuke said:


> Two Things:
> 
> 1) If they can carry the thing, why would you make them roll? Is there a meaningful consequence for failure?




Because it was a simple and easily understandable example to stand in for "two people make an athletics check". Also, because the item is heavier than their "lift score". There are plenty of examples of rolling to exceed the standard limits in the game. 

Do you have a better or preferred action for two people not trained in athletics to try and accomplish together? Or is this just trying to undercut the point because I didn't come up with a perfect example that is as easily understood and parsed because I'm sure all of us have had to carry something unweildy and heavy, and have had someone assist us in doing so.



FitzTheRuke said:


> 2) If you think they should have advantage, give 'em advantage. This isn't really a situation where someone is using a skill and another is helping them. This is a matter of two people carrying an object. (It doesn't entirely fall under ability checks, unless you want it to - it falls under encumbrance). But if you want to just judge that the weaker one is giving the stronger one advantage, just do it. (Heck, personally I would just have them both roll STR, and allow the higher result to stand for the test.)




Right. See, this isn't a game book of published rules we are discussing. It is a playtest. A playtest with the explicit purpose of trying to make better rules. Yes, I could trivially change the rules to what I feel is better by homebrewing them, but, you know, it kind of defeats the entire purpose of a playtest to look at a rule and say "well, this is a rule with problems, but I can rewrite it for myself, so why bother telling the designer about it or discussing it with the rest of the playtesters?" 

Seriously, why is this the second time (at least) I've been told to just homebrew playtest rules instead of discussing their merits? If the rules were already published, that's one thing, but these are rules in development, discussion on developing them is the entire point!


----------



## Micah Sweet

Chaosmancer said:


> Because it was a simple and easily understandable example to stand in for "two people make an athletics check". Also, because the item is heavier than their "lift score". There are plenty of examples of rolling to exceed the standard limits in the game.
> 
> Do you have a better or preferred action for two people not trained in athletics to try and accomplish together? Or is this just trying to undercut the point because I didn't come up with a perfect example that is as easily understood and parsed because I'm sure all of us have had to carry something unweildy and heavy, and have had someone assist us in doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. See, this isn't a game book of published rules we are discussing. It is a playtest. A playtest with the explicit purpose of trying to make better rules. Yes, I could trivially change the rules to what I feel is better by homebrewing them, but, you know, it kind of defeats the entire purpose of a playtest to look at a rule and say "well, this is a rule with problems, but I can rewrite it for myself, so why bother telling the designer about it or discussing it with the rest of the playtesters?"
> 
> Seriously, why is this the second time (at least) I've been told to just homebrew playtest rules instead of discussing their merits? If the rules were already published, that's one thing, but these are rules in development, discussion on developing them is the entire point!



I'd say that the purpose of the playtest is to determine if the decisions they've already made in concept are popular enough to sell us the core books again, but to each their own.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> I'd say that the purpose of the playtest is to determine if the decisions they've already made in concept are popular enough to sell us the core books again, but to each their own.



Like the “decisions” about crits, and Inspiration on nat 20, which they already changed?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> Like the “decisions” about crits, and Inspiration on nat 20, which they already changed?



The second playtest has explicitly been said not to be affected by the first playtest, but even if it were, I'm talking about the class, race and monster structural stuff.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Chaosmancer said:


> Because it was a simple and easily understandable example to stand in for "two people make an athletics check".




Was it? I would have thought that your example was more just a straight strength check, rather than an athletics check, but that's fine if you intended it that way.



Chaosmancer said:


> Also, because the item is heavier than their "lift score". There are plenty of examples of rolling to exceed the standard limits in the game.




Sure. It's more of a corner case than I thought you were describing.



Chaosmancer said:


> Do you have a better or preferred action for two people not trained in athletics to try and accomplish together? Or is this just trying to undercut the point because I didn't come up with a perfect example that is as easily understood and parsed because I'm sure all of us have had to carry something unweildy and heavy, and have had someone assist us in doing so.




No, I mean, that one's fine, it's just more corner-case than I'd worry too much about the rules needing to account for specifically.  Your full scenario is "two people untrained try to carry something that is heavier than they should ought to based on their strength scores AND the DM has a reason in mind to make them need to roll for success". I'd expect the DM to make a call here. I think that it's covered in the playtest rules under "the DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible". Your scenario and any other similar one seems to me like most reasonable DMs would rule that the Help Action works. That's not the same as houserules.

I'm not trying to be difficult with you, I'm just trying to engage with you about it. Sure, I disagree with you (very mildly - I mean, I'm sure I'd be happy with a version of the rule that was worded in a way that was more to your liking, but I feel like this one is also fine).



Chaosmancer said:


> Right. See, this isn't a game book of published rules we are discussing. It is a playtest.




I am well aware of this! I find myself pointing this out quite regularly. In particular when people post statements like "this is how it works now". (It doesn't - it only works that way if you're actively playtesting these rules, otherwise they're ATM just good for speculation).



Chaosmancer said:


> A playtest with the explicit purpose of trying to make better rules.




Hopefully!



Chaosmancer said:


> Yes, I could trivially change the rules to what I feel is better by homebrewing them,




That's not what I'm advocating. It's not homebrewing - it's following the rule "the DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible" in a scenario when NO ONE is skilled. Otherwise, if only one of the PCs involved is skilled, then by the playtest rule, THEY Help the unskilled one to do the task, AFAICT.



Chaosmancer said:


> but, you know, it kind of defeats the entire purpose of a playtest to look at a rule and say "well, this is a rule with problems, but I can rewrite it for myself, so why bother telling the designer about it or discussing it with the rest of the playtesters?"




I didn't ask you to rewrite it. And I'm not asking you not to discuss it. I'm discussing it with you. I'm not sure the problem you're trying to point out is, in fact, a problem, and I felt like talking to you about it might make me understand it more fully. I disagree not to shut you down, but to find out more about your perspective.



Chaosmancer said:


> Seriously, why is this the second time (at least) I've been told to just homebrew playtest rules instead of discussing their merits?




Again, I wasn't asking you to homebrew rules. I may have suggested that you make a ruling, however. That's a part of the game (as is not asking people to roll if the situation doesn't have interesting consequences). Most versions of "two people carrying a heavy object", I'd imagine that they'd just carry it with no roll.



Chaosmancer said:


> If the rules were already published, that's one thing, but these are rules in development, discussion on developing them is the entire point!




Exactly! I'm with you!


----------



## Stalker0

Chaosmancer said:


> Bounded accuracy is the same, so why have we decided that an extra pair of hands is no longer enough help to grant advantage?



An extra pair of hands IS enough....as long as those hands are actually skilled at the task (aka proficiency). That's the difference that's being pursued in the new playtest, we are saying that help from a skilled person who knows what they are doing is strong enough to grant the bonus...and help from an untrained person who has little formal training is not.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I am wary of any rule that benefits the characters but doesn’t come with a cost or a risk. 

On the other hand, the proficiency requirement adds complexity to skill choice. If before the incentive was to choose skills, as a team, to cover all bases, now there’s also an incentive to double up on some of them.


----------



## Chaosmancer

FitzTheRuke said:


> Was it? I would have thought that your example was more just a straight strength check, rather than an athletics check, but that's fine if you intended it that way.




Okay? 



FitzTheRuke said:


> Sure. It's more of a corner case than I thought you were describing.




You wanted "why is this a roll", I gave it. It doesn't matter why this specific example was a roll. The point was to give an example that could be done by two people without proficiency, in our real world, that makes sense. I just needed an example, the example itself barely matters except to provide the context.



FitzTheRuke said:


> No, I mean, that one's fine, it's just more corner-case than I'd worry too much about the rules needing to account for specifically.  Your full scenario is "two people untrained try to carry something that is heavier than they should ought to based on their strength scores AND the DM has a reason in mind to make them need to roll for success". I'd expect the DM to make a call here. I think that it's covered in the playtest rules under "the DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible". Your scenario and any other similar one seems to me like most reasonable DMs would rule that the Help Action works. That's not the same as houserules.
> 
> I'm not trying to be difficult with you, I'm just trying to engage with you about it. Sure, I disagree with you (very mildly - I mean, I'm sure I'd be happy with a version of the rule that was worded in a way that was more to your liking, but I feel like this one is also fine).




_sigh_ Fine, let's make more examples. 

Acrobatics includes the ability to stay on your feet on ice. Do I need to be a trained acrobat to offer my arm and support someone walking on ice, to help make sure they don't fall? This is something I did for YEARS with my grandmother. 

Strength checks include pushing through a tunnel that is too small. Do I need to be trained in athletics to shove them from behind and assist them in getting through tunnel? 

Dexterity checks include wriggling free of ropes that you are bound in. Do I need to be trained in sleight of hand to assist someone while I am tied up, by grabbing an end of the rope and acting as an anchor point, or helping to try and loosen a knot? 

Investigation checks include helping someone search a room. I don't need to be trained in Investigation to search a room, so why do I need to be trained in investigation to help someone search a room? We often call upon other people to help search for something we have lost, because more people searching makes it more likely to be found. 

Intelligence checks include winning at games of skill. First of all, the phrasing of the help action as requiring a Skill Proficiency means that, per RAW, I can't use my proficiency in the Gaming Set to perform the help action, because that is a tool proficiency. However, we are all also gamers, we are very aware that two people who are not skilled at a game can work together and lead to better gaming results than either of them alone. People help each other all the time with games they are unfamiliar with. 

Medicine checks are used for stabilizing someone. Sure, I wouldn't allow someone not trained in medicine to perform surgery or make medicine, but how often in movies have we seen a terrified civilian grabbed and told to "put pressure on the wound" as the other person performs the tasks needed to save the character's life. That is a classic help action, the additional hands are incredibly useful, and they require zero medical training. Heck, I job shadowed a vet for a paper once and I, with no vet training, was asked to help hold a dog to make the vet's job easier. Why is that no longer allowed?

Intimidation, Persuasion and Deception can all be aided by simply backing the other person's claim, by adding your own words to their attempt. One person is easier to ignore and dismiss than two or three telling you the same thing. Again, you don't need proficiency in these skills to attempt those rolls, so why do you need proficiency in them to attempt to aid in those rolls? 



Sure, each one of these may be a corner case. But when you can trivially find eight corners that have cases, many of them things you have directly encountered, it becomes less and less of a "minor" concern, and more and more of a systematic issue. Which generally come back to the same point. I don't need proficiency in the skill to attempt the check, so why do I need it to attempt to assist? That and the toold profs, which I didn't even consider until I went digging for more examples, and seems like a MAJOR oversight.



FitzTheRuke said:


> That's not what I'm advocating. It's not homebrewing - it's following the rule "the DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible" in a scenario when NO ONE is skilled. Otherwise, if only one of the PCs involved is skilled, then by the playtest rule, THEY Help the unskilled one to do the task, AFAICT.




See, but I don't think that line was meant to rule on allowing someone without the skill prof to use the help action. I think it was far more about things like "You can't help the mage remember his schooling" or "You can't help the rogue insight this person" because those actions can often not make sense in the narrative. IF they meant to allow people without the prof to help... then they wouldn't have added in as a requirement, instead they could have added towards the end "The DM may require a skill proficiency to use the Help action for certain d20 tests." Make THAT the exception, for those exceptionally skilled tests, like singing or performing surgery that  would require being more highly skilled to aid.



FitzTheRuke said:


> I didn't ask you to rewrite it. And I'm not asking you not to discuss it. I'm discussing it with you. I'm not sure the problem you're trying to point out is, in fact, a problem, and I felt like talking to you about it might make me understand it more fully. I disagree not to shut you down, but to find out more about your perspective.




Sorry, I've been dealing with a lot of people who have been trying to shut down conversation, which made me a bit prickly.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Stalker0 said:


> An extra pair of hands IS enough....as long as those hands are actually skilled at the task (aka proficiency). That's the difference that's being pursued in the new playtest, we are saying that help from a skilled person who knows what they are doing is strong enough to grant the bonus...and help from an untrained person who has little formal training is not.




Which I'm saying makes no sense. Checks that could be attempted without the skill proficiency in the first place should be able to be assisted without the skill proficiency. There are things that I can do to aid someone in successfully completing their task, that greatly increases they chances of success, without having to be a highly trained professional.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bill Zebub said:


> I am wary of any rule that benefits the characters but doesn’t come with a cost or a risk.




Why should we be wary of teamwork?



Bill Zebub said:


> On the other hand, the proficiency requirement adds complexity to skill choice. If before the incentive was to choose skills, as a team, to cover all bases, now there’s also an incentive to double up on some of them.




Not at all. The rule simply states you need to pick *A* skill proficiency. You are not required to pick the same skill proficiency as the check is being made with. By RAW I could use my proficiency in performance to provide the help action to someone performing a medicine check. The only limit is whether or not the DM accepts, which is just DM fiat. 

So, there is no incentive to double up, unless you know you will be making specific checks consistently that the DM will not allow other proficiencies to work for, and you will need two of the same skill proficiency. Which requires a level of foreknowledge I rarely have in games I've played in.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> Why should we be wary of teamwork?




I didn't say we should be wary of teamwork.  I said _I_ am wary of rules that provide benefit with no cost/risk.  This example happens to involve teamwork.

You and I apparently have completely divergent ideas of what makes a game fun.  Or even a game.  So there's no "we" here.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Chaosmancer said:


> You wanted "why is this a roll", I gave it. It doesn't matter why this specific example was a roll. The point was to give an example that could be done by two people without proficiency, in our real world, that makes sense. I just needed an example, the example itself barely matters except to provide the context.




Yes, I understood that. Your argument makes sense. The trouble is, they made this change because of all the situations on the _other side_ where Help only makes sense if the helper knows what they're doing. I'm sure you or I (or someone else) could come up with as many (if not more) scenarios where that would be true as you managed to do here for your case.



Chaosmancer said:


> See, but I don't think that line was meant to rule on allowing someone without the skill prof to use the help action.




I think it _was_. I think it's "use this rule unless it doesn't make sense, then make a ruling".



Chaosmancer said:


> IF they meant to allow people without the prof to help... then they wouldn't have added in as a requirement, instead they could have added towards the end "The DM may require a skill proficiency to use the Help action for certain d20 tests." Make THAT the exception, for those exceptionally skilled tests, like singing or performing surgery that  would require being more highly skilled to aid.




I guess we're faced with two problems:

1) Sometimes it makes sense that any second pair of hands will help.
2) Sometimes it only makes sense that a skilled person could help.

Which is more common? I guess it depends on playstyle, a bit, and also on how helpful you want the Help Action to be. With the changes to Guidance, it seems like they might be trying to make additional bonusses (like extra d4's and Advantage) a little rarer than they can be in a lot of games. Perhaps full-on advantage for Help is a little much for just an extra pair of hands. Perhaps it's not so much that the extra hands don't help narratively (even if they don't help mechanically) but that they don't help _enough to grant *advantage_ (a big bonus).

So what to do? This is a problem with the entire skill system, as there's not a lot of guidance on when "trained only" checks are important over untrained, and exactly how much you can accomplish without tools (for example, with the playtest, if Lockpicking is a Sleight-of-Hand check, and Thieves' Tools give you Advantage on that check, what does that mean if you *don't have any thieves' tools? Can you pick a lock? Obviously that's silly, but will a dagger do? A toothpick? Where is the line?)

I'm not sure which is better, myself. The playtest way, or the "old" way. Both result in scenarios that need DM rulings. Which one would be more common? My gut says the Playtest would cover more ground at my table, but you've made a good case for the old version. Perhaps they can come up with some sort of hybrid, but I can't imagine it would make for _less_ DM rulings - but maybe it could make for better guidance for a DM.



Chaosmancer said:


> Sorry, I've been dealing with a lot of people who have been trying to shut down conversation, which made me a bit prickly.




No worries! It's tough communicating by text.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Chaosmancer said:


> Which I'm saying makes no sense. Checks that could be attempted without the skill proficiency in the first place should be able to be assisted without the skill proficiency. There are things that I can do to aid someone in successfully completing their task, that greatly increases they chances of success, without having to be a highly trained professional.




See, here you are advocating for Advantage being easy to get. Any hands will do. 

Out of curiosity, do you use the optional Flanking rules? I don't, because in spite of feeling that multiple attackers (I've experienced it IRL) is a dangerous place to find yourself in, I think that Advantage is too good. Besides, you're pretty much screwed in D&D when you're surrounded anyhow.



Chaosmancer said:


> Not at all. The rule simply states you need to pick *A* skill proficiency. You are not required to pick the same skill proficiency as the check is being made with.




You're mistaken here. It says "Choose one of  your Skill Proficiencies and one ally who    can see or hear you. You give Advantage to the next Ability Check *that ally makes with the chosen Skill.  *


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Best way, would be stating: the DM decides if you need proficiency in the chosen skill to help with the task.
But that would earn criticism from mother may I critics...

Maybe: if you help, you need to make an ability check against DC - 10 if you lack the relevant skill proficiency.

This way most cases would be covered. Helping in stabilizing? DC is 10. So the helper needs to make a check vs DC 0. Assisting with balance?
If you are standing on Ice yourself, making the check vs DC 5 might be feasible... and so on.

But I prefer: the DM decides if help is possible or a proficiency or a check is needed to assist.


----------



## Stalker0

Chaosmancer said:


> Which I'm saying makes no sense. Checks that could be attempted without the skill proficiency in the first place should be able to be assisted without the skill proficiency. There are things that I can do to aid someone in successfully completing their task, that greatly increases they chances of success, without having to be a highly trained professional.



It is also true that fighting two people front and back is a lot harder than two people in front of you...but there is no flanking.

Fighting from high ground is also a benefit in combat....but there is no bonus.

Fighting with a large backpack of crap makes it much harder to fight someone...but there is no penalty for all of the stuff PCs carry.


There are LOTs of things in the game that aren't tracked in the spirit of streamlining and providing a good model for the game. Now I can respect you hate this one, but it makes just as much sense as anything else not tracked or recorded in the game.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bill Zebub said:


> I didn't say we should be wary of teamwork.  I said _I_ am wary of rules that provide benefit with no cost/risk.  This example happens to involve teamwork.
> 
> You and I apparently have completely divergent ideas of what makes a game fun.  Or even a game.  So there's no "we" here.




But you aren't really defining anything in a useful way. The rules for stabilizing the dying with a roll provide a benefit (stablizing the character) with no cost and no risk, correct? If not correct then an action is a cost, and therefore the help action has a cost, it is an action. Perhaps the risk of the stabilzing roll is the chance of failure? Well, even with advantage there is a chance for failure, so now we potentially have a cost and a risk. 

However, this doesn't seem to be your argument. You seem to want there to be more. It seems to me that you want there to be relatively no cost or risk to using skills, only a cost/risk to assisting someone in using a skill, in aiding them. But that leads directly into teamwork. If two people using their skills together incurs a greater cost or a greater risk than a single person doing it, then you are simply discouraging teamwork. Because then you have to weigh whether or not working as a team is worth the cost. Which seems strange in a game that is supposed to be a team game, and already struggles to fulfill that. 


Maybe I would understand if you gave some examples? What types of costs or risks do you think are appropriate for two people working together to overcome a challenge?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> However, this doesn't seem to be your argument. You seem to want there to be more. It seems to me that you want there to be relatively no cost or risk to using skills, only a cost/risk to assisting someone in using a skill, in aiding them.




100% incorrect.  I don't expect you (or anybody) to remember what other posters say in various threads, but I have always been a very active proponent of ability checks (and skills, where applicable) being used in exactly one situation: when the player declares an action in which the outcome, as determined by the DM, is uncertain, _and there is a cost to failure_.

For example, if somebody wants to pick a lock, and there's no time pressure, and if they fail the situation is unchanged (that is, whatever is locked is still locked) then I don't call for a roll.  It's either not possible for them to pick the lock, or I just rule that eventually they succeed.  Or maybe the cost of failure is that they break the lock, leaving evidence of what they have done (if the situation is such that this would be a bad thing.)

So, no, I don't want there to be no cost or risk to using skills.

The _spare the dying_ cantrip is an interesting case.  It's true there's no cost to using it, unless what you are doing is giving up your turn to cast it.  That's a cost.  If the combat has ended and the unconscious player is still making death saves...then, yeah, in that case there's no cost.  On the other hand, in my experience that's such an uncommon scenario that _spare the dying_ isn't high on my list of annoying cantrips.  Unlike _guidance_, which tops the list.

Maybe it's ok to have a zero cost cantrip that is just the right thing in very rare circumstances.  In that cast the "cost" is the one you alluded to earlier: you chose that infrequently used cantrip over a more generally useful one, so you should get to save the day for free every now and then.  But when a cantrip is incredibly useful, it's not much of a cost to choose it.


----------



## Chaosmancer

FitzTheRuke said:


> Yes, I understood that. Your argument makes sense. The trouble is, they made this change because of all the situations on the _other side_ where Help only makes sense if the helper knows what they're doing. I'm sure you or I (or someone else) could come up with as many (if not more) scenarios where that would be true as you managed to do here for your case.




Right, which is why I like the change to the rule that says "_The DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible._" This covers those instances when it doesn't make sense. If it only makes sense in this scenario that the person aiding has to know what they are doing, the DM can kibosh it. I'm far happier with DM fiat stepping in and saying "Sorry, this doesn't make sense." rather than having to put them into the situation of "Well, the rules say no, but this makes sense, so I'll allow it." 



FitzTheRuke said:


> Which is more common? I guess it depends on playstyle, a bit, and also on how helpful you want the Help Action to be. With the changes to Guidance, it seems like they might be trying to make additional bonusses (like extra d4's and Advantage) a little rarer than they can be in a lot of games. Perhaps full-on advantage for Help is a little much for just an extra pair of hands. Perhaps it's not so much that the extra hands don't help narratively (even if they don't help mechanically) but that they don't help _enough to grant *advantage_ (a big bonus).




I agree with you that is what they seem to be doing, I'm just not sure it is a good change. It seems to be... I don't think "siloing" is the correct term, but it seems to be pushing the game towards a model where only one person is involved in the skill check most of the time. 

In a way, this is a solution to the problems with the Inquisitive Rogue, who has a level 9 ability to give them advantage on Investigation checks, or the general power of familiars to grant advantage on skills. But I think it ends up making it even harder to encourage group play. If you don't have a skill proficiency you think applies, you just tune out of the situation, because you cannot in any way assist. Having Guidance means you only are going to pay attention until you use it once. Bardic inspiration is far more limited. It feels like moving from an (admittedly not perfect) paradigm of "okay team, how can we do this" to "I work alone" 

And I don't think that's a good direction. 



FitzTheRuke said:


> See, here you are advocating for Advantage being easy to get. Any hands will do.
> 
> Out of curiosity, do you use the optional Flanking rules? I don't, because in spite of feeling that multiple attackers (I've experienced it IRL) is a dangerous place to find yourself in, I think that Advantage is too good. Besides, you're pretty much screwed in D&D when you're surrounded anyhow.




I've used them before. Not using them currently but I've always enjoyed how they encourage people to think about where their allies are and how to work together with them. 

Notably, this brings up the second portion of the Help action. In combat, Help is unchanged. Have an action, use it, advantage on an attack. No need for an additional restrictions. It is only in skills that it has become more limited.



FitzTheRuke said:


> You're mistaken here. It says "Choose one of  your Skill Proficiencies and one ally who    can see or hear you. You give Advantage to the next Ability Check *that ally makes with the chosen Skill.  *




Ah, mixed up who was choosing which skill. 

So, yeah, now it is only possible to get advantage with two trained individuals working together. I really don't like this.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> Maybe I would understand if you gave some examples? What types of costs or risks do you think are appropriate for two people working together to overcome a challenge?




I didn't answer this, but I don't know what the answer is here.  I don't have a better solution that works within the design parameters of D&D.  I think requiring proficiency is a step in the right direction for the reasons I mentioned upthread.


----------



## Chaosmancer

UngeheuerLich said:


> Best way, would be stating: the DM decides if you need proficiency in the chosen skill to help with the task.
> But that would earn criticism from mother may I critics...
> 
> Maybe: if you help, you need to make an ability check against DC - 10 if you lack the relevant skill proficiency.
> 
> This way most cases would be covered. Helping in stabilizing? DC is 10. So the helper needs to make a check vs DC 0. Assisting with balance?
> If you are standing on Ice yourself, making the check vs DC 5 might be feasible... and so on.
> 
> But I prefer: the DM decides if help is possible or a proficiency or a check is needed to assist.




I have been wondering if it makes sense to have a second roll for the Help action, maybe a flat DC 10. It would slow things down, but it would make it harder for people give advantage. 

Then again, you have to consider that versus just having both people roll and add their own modifiers. We all know how easy it is to slip into "can I try?" where the entire party just cycles through attempting the same skill check.


----------



## Bill Zebub

FitzTheRuke said:


> 1) Sometimes it makes sense that any second pair of hands will help.
> 2) Sometimes it only makes sense that a skilled person could help.
> 
> Which is more common?




From my p.o.v. it's not about what's more common or, god forbid, realistic, but simply what makes playing the game require more thought and more non-obvious decisions.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Stalker0 said:


> It is also true that fighting two people front and back is a lot harder than two people in front of you...but there is no flanking.




1) Flanking is an optional rule
2) The Help action in combat can represent this



Stalker0 said:


> Fighting from high ground is also a benefit in combat....but there is no bonus.




Likely because it depends. High ground is great... unless your opponent is 10 ft tall. In fact, rules for "high ground" would basically just give Giants a permanent advantage against medium sized creatures. A far more likely reason to exclude them.



Stalker0 said:


> Fighting with a large backpack of crap makes it much harder to fight someone...but there is no penalty for all of the stuff PCs carry.




There is an optional rule for that.



Stalker0 said:


> There are LOTs of things in the game that aren't tracked in the spirit of streamlining and providing a good model for the game. Now I can respect you hate this one, but it makes just as much sense as anything else not tracked or recorded in the game.




See, if this was the DnD Next playtest, I could agree with you. Problem is, the game has been running for eight years with this being something tracked and recorded. Them changing it now seems far more like trying to nerf the system, not that they have decided it doesn't have a big impact.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Chaosmancer said:


> I have been wondering if it makes sense to have a second roll for the Help action, maybe a flat DC 10. It would slow things down, but it would make it harder for people give advantage.
> 
> Then again, you have to consider that versus just having both people roll and add their own modifiers. We all know how easy it is to slip into "can I try?" where the entire party just cycles through attempting the same skill check.




This was the 3.5 method.
Currently I think the "DM decides" rule would be best however.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bill Zebub said:


> 100% incorrect.  I don't expect you (or anybody) to remember what other posters say in various threads, but I have always been a very active proponent of ability checks (and skills, where applicable) being used in exactly one situation: when the player declares an action in which the outcome, as determined by the DM, is uncertain, _and there is a cost to failure_.
> 
> For example, if somebody wants to pick a lock, and there's no time pressure, and if they fail the situation is unchanged (that is, whatever is locked is still locked) then I don't call for a roll.  It's either not possible for them to pick the lock, or I just rule that eventually they succeed.  Or maybe the cost of failure is that they break the lock, leaving evidence of what they have done (if the situation is such that this would be a bad thing.)
> 
> So, no, I don't want there to be no cost or risk to using skills.




This is splitting hairs. The player faces no cost or risk to declaring that they pick a lock. It is only when there is a meaningful failure state that you roll, but the action has no inherent cost or risk. 

However, even if I grant you that these skills have an inherent risk because there would be no roll without that risk, then I must ask why that same risk doesn't cover the help action? You can't grant advantage to a roll without a roll taking place, so whatever consequence of failure the person making the skill check faces, the person granting advantage to that skill check faces. Why is that not enough for the Help Action, but it is enough for the use of the skill itself?



Bill Zebub said:


> The _spare the dying_ cantrip is an interesting case.  It's true there's no cost to using it, unless what you are doing is giving up your turn to cast it.  That's a cost.  If the combat has ended and the unconscious player is still making death saves...then, yeah, in that case there's no cost.  On the other hand, in my experience that's such an uncommon scenario that _spare the dying_ isn't high on my list of annoying cantrips.  Unlike _guidance_, which tops the list.
> 
> Maybe it's ok to have a zero cost cantrip that is just the right thing in very rare circumstances.  In that cast the "cost" is the one you alluded to earlier: you chose that infrequently used cantrip over a more generally useful one, so you should get to save the day for free every now and then.  But when a cantrip is incredibly useful, it's not much of a cost to choose it.




Okay but.... I've not mentioned Spare the Dying once? I was referring to the DC 10 medicine check that anyone can make at any time. There is no cost to that, and no risk except failure. And if failure is enough of a risk to make the roll possible, why is it not enough to allow someone to spend a second action to grant advantage on that roll?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Stalker0 said:


> It is also true that fighting two people front and back is a lot harder than two people in front of you...but there is no flanking.
> 
> Fighting from high ground is also a benefit in combat....but there is no bonus.
> 
> Fighting with a large backpack of crap makes it much harder to fight someone...but there is no penalty for all of the stuff PCs carry.
> 
> 
> There are LOTs of things in the game that aren't tracked in the spirit of streamlining and providing a good model for the game. Now I can respect you hate this one, but it makes just as much sense as anything else not tracked or recorded in the game.



True, and a lot of that I don't like.  And I don't like finding more things to "streamline" even more.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> This is splitting hairs. The player faces no cost or risk to declaring that they pick a lock. It is only when there is a meaningful failure state that you roll, but the action has no inherent cost or risk.
> 
> However, even if I grant you that these skills have an inherent risk because there would be no roll without that risk, then I must ask why that same risk doesn't cover the help action? You can't grant advantage to a roll without a roll taking place, so whatever consequence of failure the person making the skill check faces, the person granting advantage to that skill check faces. Why is that not enough for the Help Action, but it is enough for the use of the skill itself?




It’s the same principle of reward for risk. If there is zero cost or risk for helping, then it’s a no-brainer to use it. In case you’ve missed the pattern to everything I’ve been saying, it’s that no-brainer decisions are uninteresting in a game and are poor game design. It seems you disagree, which is fine, but it’s been the consistent foundation under everything I’ve been saying. 



Chaosmancer said:


> Okay but.... I've not mentioned Spare the Dying once?




Sorry. Read it wrong.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Chaosmancer said:


> Right, which is why I like the change to the rule that says "_The DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible._"



Interestingly, that's the part I felt like you were ignoring when you described what I was suggesting as homebrewing. I had meant for you to invoke this! If you find a scenario that you feel doesn't make sense without help working - let it work!



Chaosmancer said:


> I agree with you that is what they seem to be doing, I'm just not sure it is a good change. It seems to be... I don't think "siloing" is the correct term, but it seems to be pushing the game towards a model where only one person is involved in the skill check most of the time.




I'm not sure that's the intent - I think the intent is to make each roll more important. That's part of why (AFAICT) they've been pushing the "don't roll unless there is interesting consequences". I think they're trying to teach DMs to be both more generous to player input, and also to not let a bad roll derail the story that's being told.



Chaosmancer said:


> proficiency you think applies, you just tune out of the situation, because you cannot in any way assist. Having Guidance means you only are going to pay attention until you use it once. Bardic inspiration is far more limited. It feels like moving from an (admittedly not perfect) paradigm of "okay team, how can we do this" to "I work alone"




I'm not sure there's danger in that happening. I can't imagine the designers ever _intending_ to make the rules interfere with team building and teamwork. I mean, I guess it could happen with unintended consequences? I'd hope not.



Chaosmancer said:


> And I don't think that's a good direction.




Absolutely. It would be a bad direction.



Chaosmancer said:


> Notably, this brings up the second portion of the Help action. In combat, Help is unchanged. Have an action, use it, advantage on an attack.




True. As an aside, Help is an action and Flanking is "free" (with positioning). Both are pretty much narratively the same thing. I approve of the Help action in combat, but I don't like Flanking (which I also find more fiddly rules-wise than its worth).



Chaosmancer said:


> It is only in skills that it has become more limited.




I get where you're coming from now. You just don't want any barriers to players using teamwork to accomplish goals. It's an excellent motive.



Chaosmancer said:


> So, yeah, now it is only possible to get advantage with two trained individuals working together.




Unless the DM says otherwise, yes.



Chaosmancer said:


> I really don't like this.




Fair. I think it's fine, but I guess I'd be fine to rule against it often, so maybe I'd rather it was changed. Another place where I'd probably rule against it is in situations where one skill might be complimentary to another skill (Like good-cop bad-cop in an interrogation. One could argue that one character's intimidation could give advantage to another's persuasion!)



Bill Zebub said:


> From my p.o.v. it's not about what's more common or, god forbid, realistic, but simply what makes playing the game require more thought and more non-obvious decisions.




I think I understand what you mean, and it's a consideration to be sure. Honestly, there are a lot of factors involved and I'm not sure which are the most important. (I'm with you on "realism" it can be such a burden. What we need are more story-telling tools. It really doesn't matter if the story winds up "realistic" - it's more if it winds up any "good" - as measured by player and DM satisfaction!


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bill Zebub said:


> Sorry. Read it wrong.




No problem. 



Bill Zebub said:


> It’s the same principle of reward for risk. If there is zero cost or risk for helping, then it’s a no-brainer to use it. In case you’ve missed the pattern to everything I’ve been saying, it’s that no-brainer decisions are uninteresting in a game and are poor game design. It seems you disagree, which is fine, but it’s been the consistent foundation under everything I’ve been saying.




I have gotten that point from you, but it seems to be a very inconsistent position. For example, let us take the Medicine Action I was just talking about it. It is a DC 10 medicine check. Now, I'm going to take this out of combat for a moment, because we are talking about out of combat skills. Why isn't this a problem too? This is a no-brainer. If you have an ally who is bleeding out, you go over and make the check. There is no reason not to, no penalty for doing so.

Why is this not a bad game design? It is a no-brainer decision, therefore according to you it is uninteresting, but I've seen those checks as being very dramatic in multiple games. One could further make the argument that the Healer's Kit would be worse, because it is so cheap that it is basically no cost to get, and even takes the risk of a failed roll away. However, I see the Healer's Kit as a signal that the party is planning ahead. They are considering what might happen and taking steps to prepare themselves for that problem in the future. 

And this might be the biggest disconnect between us. You seem to see the action itself having no consequences as it being a "brain-off" moment, but the times I have most seen the Help Action taken are the times when the players are invested in the moment. They want to succeed, so they are jumping in to help the person making the check succeed. Often times when no one is interested, instead of "I help" I hear "I go do X" or "I'll check out Y instead" and the party scatters looking for something interesting. The Help action is almost a flag that tells me "We as a Party are invested", so I cannot see the "brain-off" moment that you seem to dread so much.


----------



## Chaosmancer

FitzTheRuke said:


> Interestingly, that's the part I felt like you were ignoring when you described what I was suggesting as homebrewing. I had meant for you to invoke this! If you find a scenario that you feel doesn't make sense without help working - let it work!




Right, but as I said, I'd rather reverse this. I don't want the DM to give permission to let it work, I feel that is a problem because the more RAW and conservative DMs will then prevent logical actions from meaningfully helping. Instead, I'd rather the DM step in when it doesn't work. This gives the players free reign to immerse themselves in the story, and only when they begin breaking that immersion is the hand of the DM felt to keep them from breaking things in silly ways.



FitzTheRuke said:


> I'm not sure that's the intent - I think the intent is to make each roll more important. That's part of why (AFAICT) they've been pushing the "don't roll unless there is interesting consequences". I think they're trying to teach DMs to be both more generous to player input, and also to not let a bad roll derail the story that's being told.




This doesn't follow to me, and if this is their intent, they are making a big mistake I feel. 

The more important each roll is, the more the players want to invest resources into making sure that roll succeeds. If WoTC is trying to make each roll more important, while also limiting the resources people can put to make those rolls succeed, then it is only going to drive players to more extreme lengths. Because these rolls matter so much, they cannot fail, and so they will seek to get ever more extreme bonuses. 

Some people may think that will lead to more "creative play" but I know for me that I've often used creative solutions that grant advantage as the Help Action. That means if the Help Action is now strictly defined, then creative solutions will be constrained. "No, that can't grant advantage, because to grant advantage on a skill is the Help Action, and it requires you to be proficient". That is a thing that will be said.



FitzTheRuke said:


> I'm not sure there's danger in that happening. I can't imagine the designers ever _intending_ to make the rules interfere with team building and teamwork. I mean, I guess it could happen with unintended consequences? I'd hope not.




But there is absolutely a danger of this happening. If you have a player about to make a roll, and they have already used Guidance that day, and no one else shares in their skill proficiency... that's it. That player must stand alone, and the rest of the party will check out, because there is literally nothing they can do or engage with. 

I have had many groups struggle with team cohesion, because there is very little that you can actually do to help each other. In combat many of us act purely as individuals, because it is the most efficient way, and there is no such thing as a combo attack or anything else. Other than a caster setting a zone spell, there isn't much that say, two fighters can actually do to support each other. Now out-of-combat is going to end up the same way, there isn't much of anything we can do to support each other, so the most efficient way for us to progress is to just let each individual act on their own. Having a wing-man is only useful if you both are trained in the skill you know you will be using, if you don't share skills, you can't support each other. 

If there is no mechanical incentive to work together, then you are relying solely on people to make up reasons to work together.



FitzTheRuke said:


> True. As an aside, Help is an action and Flanking is "free" (with positioning). Both are pretty much narratively the same thing. I approve of the Help action in combat, but I don't like Flanking (which I also find more fiddly rules-wise than its worth).





I find flanking can be fine. The only time it is less good is when the classes provide different mechanics to get advantage in combat. Flanking makes a Wolf Barbarian far far less powerful, for a common example. But, as I said, in games with flanking, I find the team works far harder at positioning with each other and double-teaming enemies. Meanwhile, in games without it, we can often find ourselves not paying any attention to our allies, because it doesn't affect us until they either win or lose.



FitzTheRuke said:


> I get where you're coming from now. You just don't want any barriers to players using teamwork to accomplish goals. It's an excellent motive.




Basically.



FitzTheRuke said:


> Fair. I think it's fine, but I guess I'd be fine to rule against it often, so maybe I'd rather it was changed. Another place where I'd probably rule against it is in situations where one skill might be complimentary to another skill (Like good-cop bad-cop in an interrogation. One could argue that one character's intimidation could give advantage to another's persuasion!)




Exactly, that is such a good use of skills and tropes, I want that to be something the players can decide to do, without them looking at the rule and deciding that they can't assist in the interrogation, because the Paladin is using Intimidation, and they don't have intimidation, so they aren't allowed to help. 

Another thing to consider is that there is a chilling effect from rules like this. Even if a DM might make an exception for a rule, players are often trained to not suggest things that break the rules. If they know the rule says they must share proficiency in the skill, many of them won't suggest anything that would break that, because that's against the rules and therefore it won't work. Even if the DM might allow it to work.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> No problem.
> 
> 
> 
> I have gotten that point from you, but it seems to be a very inconsistent position. For example, let us take the Medicine Action I was just talking about it. It is a DC 10 medicine check. Now, I'm going to take this out of combat for a moment, because we are talking about out of combat skills. Why isn't this a problem too? This is a no-brainer. If you have an ally who is bleeding out, you go over and make the check. There is no reason not to, no penalty for doing so.
> 
> Why is this not a bad game design? It is a no-brainer decision, therefore according to you it is uninteresting, but I've seen those checks as being very dramatic in multiple games. One could further make the argument that the Healer's Kit would be worse, because it is so cheap that it is basically no cost to get, and even takes the risk of a failed roll away. However, I see the Healer's Kit as a signal that the party is planning ahead. They are considering what might happen and taking steps to prepare themselves for that problem in the future.




There’s a cost…literally…to healer’s kits.

That said, in general both D&D itself and the patterns of play that have become entrenched in the culture (even when the rules explicitly say otherwise) have many examples of zero-risk/cost moves. If I’m not mentioning some of them it’s not necessarily because I give them a pass, or that I’m taking an “inconsistently position”. Rather it’s just because there are a lot of them, and I’m probably only talking about the one being discussed at the moment.

I will add, however, that my dislike of these rules often correlates to the frequency with which they appear. Thus _guidance_ is high on the list. So is, “Give me an Int (History) roll.”  “Can I roll, too?”  “And me!” Etc.




Chaosmancer said:


> And this might be the biggest disconnect between us. You seem to see the action itself having no consequences as it being a "brain-off" moment, but the times I have most seen the Help Action taken are the times when the players are invested in the moment. They want to succeed, so they are jumping in to help the person making the check succeed.




And that’s great that they are invested! Which means if there were a risk or cost they’d probably pay it.



Chaosmancer said:


> Often times when no one is interested, instead of "I help" I hear "I go do X" or "I'll check out Y instead" and the party scatters looking for something interesting. The Help action is almost a flag that tells me "We as a Party are invested", so I cannot see the "brain-off" moment that you seem to dread so much.




If I truly “dreaded” it I would stop playing the game because it’s everywhere. But if we are discussing a particular rule I will bring it up, and look for a better design.


----------



## Lojaan

Please tell me we aren't still talking about guidance


----------



## tetrasodium

Lojaan said:


> Please tell me we aren't still talking about guidance



Nah it's moved on to a hypothetical situation where two pcs want to use the help action to lift a heavy object.. But their carry capacity is too low... And they have no relevant skill to help each other with... And it seems like the gm doesn't want to make an exception.


----------



## Bill Zebub

tetrasodium said:


> Nah it's moved on to a hypothetical situation where two pcs want to use the help action to lift a heavy object.. But their carry capacity is too low... And they have no relevant skill to help each other with... And it seems like the gm doesn't want to make an exception.




Seems to me this isn't using an ability with a skill but just an ability.  What does the proposed rule say about that?  

I wrote an adventure (in another system) in which the heroes had a climactic escape at the main gate and had to fight off attackers who kept coming every round, while trying to turn a windlass to raise a portcullis.  It explicitly used the strength score (or its equivalent in this system) and allowed for two people to cooperate.  Of course, you can't really fight off guards while turning a windlass.


----------



## Branduil

Maybe this is just me but if I had two characters trying to lift the same object together, I would just have them both make checks. IRL(I know, I know) if you and a friend are carrying an object, there's nothing you can really do if they "fail their check," they're just gonna drop their end of the object. 

I always interpreted the Help action as doing something to directly guide the other player in something they can do by themselves, _if_ they roll high enough. So in this example, it's the fighter with proficiency in Athletics saying "No no, lift with your _legs_ Archibald. And put your right hand here for more leverage." In that case it does make sense that someone proficient in a skill would be better suited to help another player.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Branduil said:


> “No no, lift with your _legs_ Archibald. And put your right hand here for more leverage."




Hey! This is a family website! I know we are trying to be more inclusive, but get a room!


----------



## tetrasodium

Bill Zebub said:


> Seems to me this isn't using an ability with a skill but just an ability.  What does the proposed rule say about that?
> 
> I wrote an adventure (in another system) in which the heroes had a climactic escape at the main gate and had to fight off attackers who kept coming every round, while trying to turn a windlass to raise a portcullis.  It explicitly used the strength score (or its equivalent in this system) and allowed for two people to cooperate.  Of course, you can't really fight off guards while turning a windlass.



I think it's literally the ability check referenced by the assist ability check option in the help action


Spoiler: Ability check text



*ABILITY  CHECK*
The  Ability  Check  is  one  of  three  types  of  d20
Tests.  The  rules  often  call  for  an  Ability  Check,
and  the  DM  can  also  call  for  an  Ability  Check,
determining  which  ability  to  use  when  a  creature
attempts  something  (other  than  an  Attack  Roll  or
a  Saving  Throw)  that  has  a  chance  of  meaningful
failure.  When  the  outcome  is  uncertain  and
narratively  interesting,  the  dice  determine  the
results.
  The  Ability  Check  has  the  following  special
rules.
SKILLS
When  you  make  an  Ability  Check,  the  rules  or  the
DM  determines  whether  a  Skill  Proficiency  is
relevant  to  the  check.  If  you  have  a  relevant  Skill
Proficiency,  you  can  add  your  Proficiency  Bonus
to  the  roll.  For  example,  if  a  rule  refers  to  a
Strength  Check  (Acrobatics  or  Athletics),  you  can
add  your  Proficiency  Bonus  to  the  check  if  you
have  Acrobatics  or  Athletics  Proficiency.
ACTION  REQUIRED
Making  an  Ability  Check  requires  you  to  take  an
Action  unless  a  rule  says  otherwise.  Several  of
the  named  Actions—such  as  Hide  and
Influence—include  Ability  Checks.
  The  DM  may  override  this  requirement  and
allow  a  particular  Ability  Check  to  be  made  as
part  of  a  Bonus  Action  or  as  no  Action  at  all.
DIFFICULTY  CLASS
The  DM  determines  the  Difficulty  Class  of  an
Ability  Check  and  can  override  a  DC  specified  in
the  rules.  The  Typical  Difficulty  Class  table
shows  the  most  common  DCs.
  The  default  DC  for  a  check  is  15,  and  it  is  rarely
worth  calling  for  an  Ability  Check  if  the  DC  is  as
low  as  5,  unless  the  potential  failure  is
narratively  interesting.

TYPICAL DIFFICULTY CLASS
Task Difficulty DC
Very Easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very Hard 25
Nearly Impossible 30



It's all very clear from what I read. I think the disagreement is largely a matter if the GM should be allowed to say no to unreasonable actions & have the rules support them or if the GM should need to change create & nullify rules in order to say no to unreasonable or poorly formed ideas that may or may not be an action depending on consensus.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

tetrasodium said:


> I think it's literally the ability check referenced by the assist ability check option in the help action
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Ability check text
> 
> 
> 
> *ABILITY  CHECK*
> The  Ability  Check  is  one  of  three  types  of  d20
> Tests.  The  rules  often  call  for  an  Ability  Check,
> and  the  DM  can  also  call  for  an  Ability  Check,
> determining  which  ability  to  use  when  a  creature
> attempts  something  (other  than  an  Attack  Roll  or
> a  Saving  Throw)  that  has  a  chance  of  meaningful
> failure.  When  the  outcome  is  uncertain  and
> narratively  interesting,  the  dice  determine  the
> results.
> The  Ability  Check  has  the  following  special
> rules.
> SKILLS
> When  you  make  an  Ability  Check,  the  rules  or  the
> DM  determines  whether  a  Skill  Proficiency  is
> relevant  to  the  check.  If  you  have  a  relevant  Skill
> Proficiency,  you  can  add  your  Proficiency  Bonus
> to  the  roll.  For  example,  if  a  rule  refers  to  a
> Strength  Check  (Acrobatics  or  Athletics),  you  can
> add  your  Proficiency  Bonus  to  the  check  if  you
> have  Acrobatics  or  Athletics  Proficiency.
> ACTION  REQUIRED
> Making  an  Ability  Check  requires  you  to  take  an
> Action  unless  a  rule  says  otherwise.  Several  of
> the  named  Actions—such  as  Hide  and
> Influence—include  Ability  Checks.
> The  DM  may  override  this  requirement  and
> allow  a  particular  Ability  Check  to  be  made  as
> part  of  a  Bonus  Action  or  as  no  Action  at  all.
> DIFFICULTY  CLASS
> The  DM  determines  the  Difficulty  Class  of  an
> Ability  Check  and  can  override  a  DC  specified  in
> the  rules.  The  Typical  Difficulty  Class  table
> shows  the  most  common  DCs.
> The  default  DC  for  a  check  is  15,  and  it  is  rarely
> worth  calling  for  an  Ability  Check  if  the  DC  is  as
> low  as  5,  unless  the  potential  failure  is
> narratively  interesting.
> 
> TYPICAL DIFFICULTY CLASS
> Task Difficulty DC
> Very Easy 5
> Easy 10
> Medium 15
> Hard 20
> Very Hard 25
> Nearly Impossible 30
> 
> 
> 
> It's all very clear from what I read. I think the disagreement is largely a matter if the GM should be allowed to say no to unreasonable actions & have the rules support them or if the GM should need to change create & nullify rules in order to say no to unreasonable or poorly formed ideas that may or may not be an action depending on consensus.




Not quite. The disagreement came from a scenario in which no PC had a skill proficiency but the playtest Help Action can only be done RAW by someone with an appropriate skill proficiency. The question being whether the extant 5e version of Help is worded better than this playtest one, or not. (With proponents on either side).


----------



## Chaosmancer

tetrasodium said:


> Nah it's moved on to a hypothetical situation where two pcs want to use the help action to lift a heavy object.. But their carry capacity is too low... And they have no relevant skill to help each other with... And it seems like the gm doesn't want to make an exception.




Seriously? Why not sneeringly add that I'm a whiner too while you demean and misrepresent a conversation you are not even participating in? 

To actually answer @Lojaan 's question, the current discussion has shifted to the changes to the Help action, and whether or not requiring two people with skill proficiencies to grant the advantage is good. One of the issues currently being discussed is whether or not this impacts a groups ability to work as a team. The example of moving an object was a simple and quick method to demonstrate two people, without proficiency, working together to increase their chances.

If you feel that is a bad example, I came up with seven others. Because this isn't about a single example, it is about a rules change. 

Also @FitzTheRuke , really? This gets a like from you as you have been saying that you wanted to just understand? I already addressed this single example with you a yesterday, but I guess you still think this is about a single example, not the larger issue?


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bill Zebub said:


> There’s a cost…literally…to healer’s kits.




Which I literally addressed. That cost is 5 gold. We are discussing OD&D, so let us look at the starting gold for a character. At a minimum, the characters start with 150 gold to buy equipment. Every single example character from the last UA's backgrounds that I can remember had at least 10 gold left, two of the example characters from these classes have 18 gold left. Meaning that we can average and guess that most 1st level characters will have 25 gold left over. 

Enough for 5 healer's kits. Each. 

That isn't a significant cost. It could be described as no cost at all, or a no-brainer. Which is why I pointed out that it could be argued these items basically have no cost.



Bill Zebub said:


> That said, in general both D&D itself and the patterns of play that have become entrenched in the culture (even when the rules explicitly say otherwise) have many examples of zero-risk/cost moves. If I’m not mentioning some of them it’s not necessarily because I give them a pass, or that I’m taking an “inconsistently position”. Rather it’s just because there are a lot of them, and I’m probably only talking about the one being discussed at the moment.
> 
> I will add, however, that my dislike of these rules often correlates to the frequency with which they appear. Thus _guidance_ is high on the list. So is, “Give me an Int (History) roll.”  “Can I roll, too?”  “And me!” Etc.




Okay, that is fair. But, I do wonder if you should consider whether or not your position that every single move must have a risk or a cost might be mistaken if the game was designed to have many zero-risk/no-cost moves. As I said in my above post, I find some of these moves only show up when players are invested in the success of the group.



Bill Zebub said:


> And that’s great that they are invested! Which means if there were a risk or cost they’d probably pay it.




Or they may not, and their investment may wane. IF the cost is too high or too heavy, then they won't bother. We have a classical example of this in the Berserker Barbarian. The Cost of using Frenzy was too high, so very few people played the subclass, and the majority basically agreed that the ability was bad. 

Making something costly to use does not make it a better ability.




Bill Zebub said:


> If I truly “dreaded” it I would stop playing the game because it’s everywhere. But if we are discussing a particular rule I will bring it up, and look for a better design.




I don't believe what we are being shown is actually a better design. It is just a more restrictive design. There isn't even any new cost, because no one is going to get a skill proficiency and only use it for the Help Action, it will be used as a skill proficiency they have. 



I also want to add, since we are talking about little cost. The Rogue being presented in this UA has an in-built advantage that we haven't talked about. The Rules for Tool Proficiency state that having proficiency with the Tool and with the Skill grants advantage. The rogue has proficiency with Thieve's Tools by default, and they are presented as having sleight of hand. This means that the Rogue automatically has advantage on every single check to unlock a door or disarm a trap, simply built into their class. 

I'm not sure this is a good thing, but it does lend itself more to what I was discussing with Fitz, it seems that the classes are being designed to be more solo-played than before. The rogue thief will, by level 6, have advantage on every stealth check, every disarm traps check, and every unlock check. There really is little room for the rest of the party to do anything to help them, they can just vanish into a location and go to work without any need for the party. Especially by level 10 when they get reliable talent.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Branduil said:


> Maybe this is just me but if I had two characters trying to lift the same object together, I would just have them both make checks. IRL(I know, I know) if you and a friend are carrying an object, there's nothing you can really do if they "fail their check," they're just gonna drop their end of the object.
> 
> I always interpreted the Help action as doing something to directly guide the other player in something they can do by themselves, _if_ they roll high enough. So in this example, it's the fighter with proficiency in Athletics saying "No no, lift with your _legs_ Archibald. And put your right hand here for more leverage." In that case it does make sense that someone proficient in a skill would be better suited to help another player.




Firstly, as I just stated a little bit ago, I have seven other examples if you are hung up on this one example. This is not a situation of only this lifting example. 

I am seriously considering never giving an example of anything ever again, because all it does is lead people to ignoring the point. 


But, furthermore, "Archibald" here ALSO has proficiency in Athletics. They basically have to, because otherwise why would they be making the roll instead of the fighter? Which means all this fighter is doing is telling Archibald to lift with his legs, while Archibald was already lifting with his legs and positioning his hands for leverage. Yes, it makes some sense that a person with Proficiency can give better advice on how to do something to someone without, but this falls apart when you are talking about two equally skilled people who presumably have the same knowledge base.


----------



## FrogReaver

IMO. The help action changes should be a toggle that the GM can turn on or off to help the theme of his campaign.  

Also whether some rolls are gated behind proficiency should also be a toggle. IMO.


----------



## Branduil

Chaosmancer said:


> Firstly, as I just stated a little bit ago, I have seven other examples if you are hung up on this one example. This is not a situation of only this lifting example.
> 
> I am seriously considering never giving an example of anything ever again, because all it does is lead people to ignoring the point.
> 
> 
> But, furthermore, "Archibald" here ALSO has proficiency in Athletics. They basically have to, because otherwise why would they be making the roll instead of the fighter? Which means all this fighter is doing is telling Archibald to lift with his legs, while Archibald was already lifting with his legs and positioning his hands for leverage. Yes, it makes some sense that a person with Proficiency can give better advice on how to do something to someone without, but this falls apart when you are talking about two equally skilled people who presumably have the same knowledge base.



Yes it would certainly make sense if Archibald also had proficiency in Athletics. I suppose the change I would make here is that you can Help someone as long as one of the two people involved has proficiency.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Chaosmancer said:


> Which I literally addressed. That cost is 5 gold. We are discussing OD&D, so let us look at the starting gold for a character. At a minimum, the characters start with 150 gold to buy equipment. Every single example character from the last UA's backgrounds that I can remember had at least 10 gold left, two of the example characters from these classes have 18 gold left. Meaning that we can average and guess that most 1st level characters will have 25 gold left over.
> 
> Enough for 5 healer's kits. Each.
> 
> That isn't a significant cost. It could be described as no cost at all, or a no-brainer. Which is why I pointed out that it could be argued these items basically have no cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, that is fair. But, I do wonder if you should consider whether or not your position that every single move must have a risk or a cost might be mistaken if the game was designed to have many zero-risk/no-cost moves. As I said in my above post, I find some of these moves only show up when players are invested in the success of the group.
> 
> 
> 
> Or they may not, and their investment may wane. IF the cost is too high or too heavy, then they won't bother. We have a classical example of this in the Berserker Barbarian. The Cost of using Frenzy was too high, so very few people played the subclass, and the majority basically agreed that the ability was bad.
> 
> Making something costly to use does not make it a better ability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe what we are being shown is actually a better design. It is just a more restrictive design. There isn't even any new cost, because no one is going to get a skill proficiency and only use it for the Help Action, it will be used as a skill proficiency they have.
> 
> 
> 
> I also want to add, since we are talking about little cost. The Rogue being presented in this UA has an in-built advantage that we haven't talked about. The Rules for Tool Proficiency state that having proficiency with the Tool and with the Skill grants advantage. The rogue has proficiency with Thieve's Tools by default, and they are presented as having sleight of hand. This means that the Rogue automatically has advantage on every single check to unlock a door or disarm a trap, simply built into their class.
> 
> I'm not sure this is a good thing, but it does lend itself more to what I was discussing with Fitz, it seems that the classes are being designed to be more solo-played than before. The rogue thief will, by level 6, have advantage on every stealth check, every disarm traps check, and every unlock check. There really is little room for the rest of the party to do anything to help them, they can just vanish into a location and go to work without any need for the party. Especially by level 10 when they get reliable talent.




Look, I’m not expecting the game to be purged of all zero-cost abilities. But we are discussing rule changes and I’m pointing out that when there’s no cost/risk to a decision it’s not really a decision. You’re being rewarded for simply remembering to speak up. I think that’s boring. 

In the discussion about guidance you claimed that you have to choose guidance over other cantrips, which is a cost/decision. Well, apply the same logic here: if you at least need proficiency to help, then at least you made a trade-off during chargen. 

Not that I think it’s a great rule even with the restriction. My personal feeling is that there shouldn’t be a rule, only guidance. The DM should decide if it makes sense for one character to be able to help another, and if there’s a cost to failure.   If the answers are, respectively yes then no, it might go like this:

“I try to lift the trap door.”
“It’s too heavy.”
“I help him.”
“There’s only one pull ring, and it’s too small for you to both get your hands on it.”
“I’ll put my mace handle through the ring.”
“Clever. Yeah with both of you pulling..”
“And I’ll cheer them on!”
“…with both of you pulling, and Eloelle cheering, the door creaks open.”


----------



## gorice

I think a lot of issues with help are resolved if you treat it the same way that all skill use is supposed to be treated: the player has to actually describe what their character is doing [edit: just saw @Bill Zebub 's post above, which says basically the same thing]. As a DM, you just need to ask 'how are you actually helping?', and it resolves most of these cases. If someone isn't proficient in history but is able to come up with some explanation as to how their character's background ties into the roll, more power to them.

'Help' is worded in a way that doesn't suggest this, and the general culture of play at a lot of tables seems to reject 5e's official style of rolling in favour of button-pushing, so I'm not surprised that it's a consistent issue.

That said, I don't think 'no cost' actions is a problem that can ever be solved in 5e without some kind of time constraints in place. Pretty much all the game's mechanics seem to imply that the PCs will be under time pressure (the lack of any formal way of creating this time pressure is a big hole in the design. IMO).



Chaosmancer said:


> I also want to add, since we are talking about little cost. The Rogue being presented in this UA has an in-built advantage that we haven't talked about. The Rules for Tool Proficiency state that having proficiency with the Tool and with the Skill grants advantage. The rogue has proficiency with Thieve's Tools by default, and they are presented as having sleight of hand. This means that the Rogue automatically has advantage on every single check to unlock a door or disarm a trap, simply built into their class.
> 
> I'm not sure this is a good thing, but it does lend itself more to what I was discussing with Fitz, it seems that the classes are being designed to be more solo-played than before. The rogue thief will, by level 6, have advantage on every stealth check, every disarm traps check, and every unlock check. There really is little room for the rest of the party to do anything to help them, they can just vanish into a location and go to work without any need for the party. Especially by level 10 when they get reliable talent.



Yup. The common house rule that you can drink a potion as a bonus action also does this. Maybe a lot of players are just narcissists?


----------



## Bill Zebub

gorice said:


> I think a lot of issues with help are resolved if you treat it the same way that all skill use is supposed to be treated: the player has to actually describe what their character is doing [edit: just saw @Bill Zebub 's post above, which says basically the same thing]. As a DM, you just need to ask 'how are you actually helping?', and it resolves most of these cases. If someone isn't proficient in history but is able to come up with some explanation as to how their character's background ties into the roll, more power to them.
> 
> 'Help' is worded in a way that doesn't suggest this, and the general culture of play at a lot of tables seems to reject 5e's official style of rolling in favour of button-pushing, so I'm not surprised that it's a consistent issue.
> 
> That said, I don't think 'no cost' actions is a problem that can ever be solved in 5e without some kind of time constraints in place. Pretty much all the game's mechanics seem to imply that the PCs will be under time pressure (the lack of any formal way of creating this time pressure is a big hole in the design. IMO).
> 
> 
> Yup. The common house rule that you can drink a potion as a bonus action also does this. Maybe a lot of players are just narcissists?




Yes. 

I’m on my phone trying to multi-task and didn’t add: when the designers say “use your best judgment” people whine about incomplete games that have to be finished. So they try to make rules. But this is an area where rules just don’t make a lot of sense.


----------



## Willie the Duck

FitzTheRuke said:


> I'm not sure that's the intent - I think the intent is to make each roll more important. That's part of why (AFAICT) they've been pushing the "don't roll unless there is interesting consequences". I think they're trying to teach DMs to be both more generous to player input, and also to not let a bad roll derail the story that's being told.



Looking at this, the change to _Guidance_, and a few further afield things like no-Rogue-SA-on-reactions, and I've formulated a hypothesis to the developer's goals. I think they want to reset 'the norm' in some way. As in, they've seen/heard complaints regarding skills alwaysvery often seeming to be 'roll 1d20+bonuses*+1d4, twice (taking the better result)' -- enough that players may have started considering situations where they only have 'roll 1d20+bonuses*' as a skill-check under hostile circumstances (which it may be, if their DM has let their adhoc DC numbers slide in response). Thus, they are trying (again, if I am right) to re-establish 'roll 1d20+bonuses*' as the normative situation. 
*attribute bonus and, if applicable, proficiency bonus


----------



## gorice

Bill Zebub said:


> Yes.
> 
> I’m on my phone trying to multi-task and didn’t add: when the designers say “use your best judgment” people whine about incomplete games that have to be finished. So they try to make rules. But this is an area where rules just don’t make a lot of sense.



Yeah, the number of 'can I attack with a two-handed weapon while grappling someone?' threads on places like reddit attest to the fact that a large part of the community cannot or will not incorporate the fiction into play in many situations. I think we'll see the new edition (or whatever they're calling it) move toward a more 'button-pushy' design.


----------



## tetrasodium

FitzTheRuke said:


> Not quite. The disagreement came from a scenario in which no PC had a skill proficiency but the playtest Help Action can only be done RAW by someone with an appropriate skill proficiency. The question being whether the extant 5e version of Help is worded better than this playtest one, or not. (With proponents on either side).



Yes. I consider it a good thing that it's worded in a way that such a situation is only allowed if the gm chooses to make an exception to allow untrained to help untrained or skill A to help skill B as  a thing that is "relevant"* to the ability check. The help action is not working together or a group checks though & has a higher bar to be met for its use.

"*The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player’s Handbook, except where noted.*" That's the second sentence in the UA.  There _are_ rules for "working together" & "group checks"(*phb175*)★ & those rules are distinct enough from the help action to even include the words "This requires the help action (See Chapter 9)".  The help action for the UA is on page 33 not phb ch9 but  but both of working together & group checks  are the purview of the gm.  A different rule exists for this scenario (two of them) despite all unfortunately giving the same bonus of advantage, but the identical result of advantage for all things is a secondary problem we do not yet know if 6e will be tackling.

The GM is responsible for deciding when a d20 test** is needed†, what the dc of that test is††, is a skill is "relevant"*, and "the final say on whether your assistance is possible"❄.


* "Relevant" is the word used on playtest packet2 page30 in ability checks
**oh thank god I can use precise wording for a change
† I _think_ this is still DMG or 2014 phb, it doesn't seem changed by the UA.
††UA pg 30 "Difficulty class" plus somewhere in the 5e dmg I'm sure
❄Help action UA pg33
★Those rules even specified "_character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task._"

Actions are a thing that players can choose to simply do but all of the things people are pushing for the help action to include wording for are things the GM decides elsewhere in rules specific to those things as noted a few lines up.  *Why is it needed for the  help action to consume those other two rules formerly under the GM's control?* Is there _any_ reason other than making it harder for the GM to engage in those decisions & choices with backing of the rules to support their decision when that decision is not one that flavors the players? 

 Players can attempt to work together in an example like the one by @Bill Zebub  in post258 but everything about if & how those actions work & which rules they use is for the GM to decide not the player declaring they are taking the help action.  The ability check rules & help action already support using different skills like that example though, "_You give advantage to the next ability check that ally makes with the chosen skill_" from the help action(pg33) combines with "_The rules or the DM determines whether a skill proficiency is relevant to the check_" along with  "_The DM has the final say on whether your assistance is possible_" from ability checks:skills(pg30)




Spoiler: Here's how it works




The example in 258 starts with a scenario where assistance is not possible as the DM describes (the pull ring is too small).  
Help action grants the gm that ability

That is changed by the action of sliding a mace handle through the ring
Such a thing could risk damaging the mace if 5.5/6e ultimately includes such rules.

"With both of you pulling the door creaks open...".  The GM exercised their ability to "determine the Difficulty Class of an Ability Check"(pg30) & decided no roll was needed for the two 



The UA is limited to player's handbook rules so not including guidance for the GM is not too odd  in this case.  The 2014 DMG does not appear to include any meaningful guidance that might be useful for adjudicating these kinds of edge cases like 3.5 dmg 21 & 30 did in the past. 4e May have had something useful for skill challenges but4e is not my strength & was pretty different.  In light of how hard the 2014 rules drop the ball there it might be good for a future packet to include at least a sidebar or secondary rule framework for the GM to use as this one does with the DC table


----------



## Stalker0

Lojaan said:


> Please tell me we aren't still talking about guidance



Speaking of Guidance! 

Personally I would be fine throwing a bone onto the new guidance to strengthen in a bit. Say for example, removing the V and S components (it is a reaction after all so I think that's in line), and increase the distance to 60 feet or even 100 feet.

With no components you no longer have to worry about whether you can guidance stealth or persuasion (answer: you can with this version) or XYZ, it just works on all ability checks. Adding some distance gives you a little flexibility, 30 feet is actually pretty restrictive.

That I think rounds it out a bit more, but with its 1/day/person restriction, is a nice solid cantrip.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

tetrasodium said:


> Yes. I consider it a good thing that it's worded in a way that such a situation is only allowed if the gm chooses to make an exception to allow untrained to help untrained or skill A to help skill B as  a thing that is "relevant"* to the ability check.




Yes, these are my feelings as well - I'd rather (as a DM and a player) have the rule be strict, with the DM encouraged to allow for clever (usually player-driven) exceptions, than the rule be player-exploitable, and the DM have to deny players when they go overboard. 

I like to be a "yes you can" DM.



tetrasodium said:


> The help action is not working together or a group checks though & has a higher bar to be met for its use.




Right! That clarifies for me why I posted earlier that in the original scenario I would probably have just had both PCs roll strength checks (if I made them roll at all) and let the higher one "do the heavy lifting" (ie get the praise). 

I think it was suggested that it was "homebrewing" which irked me a bit, but I couldn't articulate why it wasn't. It's because my ruling would be using a Group Check (for a group of two) instead of the Help action. (After all, both participants are working equally).

The playtest wording for the Help Action just makes Help more "expert advice" than an "extra pair of hands". The reason it works for Attacking is presumably anyone standing in melee with your opponent is 'expert' enough to pose a threat, and therefore good enough to distract them. (Or to look at it another way, the "chosen skill" is your weapon proficiency.)

I've gone back and forth a little in my own head on this while discussing it, but I find that I'm still fine with the playtest version replacing the 2014 version.


----------



## pemerton

TwoSix said:


> It's overall a good change.  Although I do think a "trade accuracy for more damage" feature would make sense as part of the combat rules.





UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes. A general -5/+5 or add prof bonus to damage instead of attack would just work well for all kinds of weapon users.



I don't think it's good for D&D - especially given it's wide player-base - to make effectiveness in combat turn on what are basically mathematical tricks.

And in the fiction, it's not like the to hit number and the damage number represent discrete things. Like a high roll to hit followed by a low damage roll doesn't mean a really, really precise but rather gentle poke.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Branduil said:


> Yes it would certainly make sense if Archibald also had proficiency in Athletics. I suppose the change I would make here is that you can Help someone as long as one of the two people involved has proficiency.




That could be a fair compromise, if people were dead set on it. I don't see how it would help anything at all, but at least I could rationalize it.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Bill Zebub said:


> Not that I think it’s a great rule even with the restriction. My personal feeling is that there shouldn’t be a rule, only guidance. The DM should decide if it makes sense for one character to be able to help another, and if there’s a cost to failure.   If the answers are, respectively yes then no, it might go like this:




Presenting it purely as guidance would be far too little. Some DMs would say no to any sort of Help ever and players would have no idea if they can or cannot Help their allies. 

And again, a different part of this changed rule covers the DMs ability to say no if it doesn't make sense. 




Bill Zebub said:


> “I try to lift the trap door.”
> “It’s too heavy.”
> “I help him.”
> “There’s only one pull ring, and it’s too small for you to both get your hands on it.”
> “I’ll put my mace handle through the ring.”
> “Clever. Yeah with both of you pulling..”
> “And I’ll cheer them on!”
> “…with both of you pulling, and Eloelle cheering, the door creaks open.”




Honestly, this is a great example of why I LIKE the help action. It has nothing to do with whether or not you have the skills, it is presenting the situation and asking "How could you help" and it leads to clever solutions when you can't. I don't want to lose that


----------



## Micah Sweet

pemerton said:


> I don't think it's good for D&D - especially given it's wide player-base - to make effectiveness in combat turn on what are basically mathematical tricks.
> 
> And in the fiction, it's not like the to hit number and the damage number represent discrete things. Like a high roll to hit followed by a low damage roll doesn't mean a really, really precise but rather gentle poke.



What does it mean?


----------



## Chaosmancer

tetrasodium said:


> "*The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player’s Handbook, except where noted.*" That's the second sentence in the UA.  There _are_ rules for "working together" & "group checks"(*phb175*)★ & those rules are distinct enough from the help action to even include the words "This requires the help action (See Chapter 9)".  The help action for the UA is on page 33 not phb ch9 but  but both of working together & group checks  are the purview of the gm.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Actions are a thing that players can choose to simply do but all of the things people are pushing for the help action to include wording for are things the GM decides elsewhere in rules specific to those things as noted a few lines up.  *Why is it needed for the  help action to consume those other two rules formerly under the GM's control?* Is there _any_ reason other than making it harder for the GM to engage in those decisions & choices with backing of the rules to support their decision when that decision is not one that flavors the players?




This seems like a rather fundamental misunderstanding of the rules text you are reading. The rules "working together" ARE the Help action. It is just listed in both places, because one section of the rules was talking about skills and the other was an action for combat. But if you read the Help action in chap 9 it opens talking about the skill use. It is poor layout and formatting, not the existence of a third set of rules.

This in no way has anything to do with GM control, and frankly, the GM had no control over the Help action to begin with, other than the ability to say no. And they still retain that ability with any change that doesn't require both parties to have proficiency. 

Also, group checks have NOTHING to do with what we are talking about, they cover an entirely different set of circumstances.


----------



## pemerton

Micah Sweet said:


> What does it mean?



As per Gygax's DMG, which I still think is the only way of making sense of hp, it means a glancing blow, a nick, or the wearing down of the opponent's werewithal.

The attack roll and damage roll are discrete processes at the table, but not discrete things in the fiction.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

pemerton said:


> I don't think it's good for D&D - especially given it's wide player-base - to make effectiveness in combat turn on what are basically mathematical tricks.
> 
> And in the fiction, it's not like the to hit number and the damage number represent discrete things. Like a high roll to hit followed by a low damage roll doesn't mean a really, really precise but rather gentle poke.




You could do the pathfinder 2e route and just give automatically extra damage if you hit by 5 or more.
Could at least be an option in the DMG.


----------



## pemerton

UngeheuerLich said:


> You could do the pathfinder 2e route and just give automatically extra damage if you hit by 5 or more.



I'm not sure this is a good fit with bounded accuracy.

One aspect of bounded accuracy is that players don't feel obliged to eke out every possible bonus; in the context of combat, this is because the marginal increase in damage gained by increasing the chance to hit from (say) 12 in 20 to (say) 14 in 20 isn't an overwhelming advantage - given the general variability of combat, the frequency of "excess" damage, etc.

Once you link damage to _degree_ of success on the to hit roll, this feature of bounded accuracy is lost.


----------



## TwoSix

pemerton said:


> Once you link damage to _degree_ of success on the to hit roll, this feature of bounded accuracy is lost.



Agreed.  If you're going to make degree of success matter, I'd rather just go with assumed auto-hit and only roll damage, and have armor be damage reduction.  (Like Into the Odd/Electric Bastionland.)


----------



## pemerton

TwoSix said:


> Agreed.  If you're going to make degree of success matter, I'd rather just go with assumed auto-hit and only roll damage, and have armor be damage reduction.  (Like Into the Odd/Electric Bastionland.)



That would be a huge reworking for D&D, I think.


----------



## tetrasodium

TwoSix said:


> Agreed.  If you're going to make degree of success matter, I'd rather just go with assumed auto-hit and only roll damage, and have armor be damage reduction.  (Like Into the Odd/Electric Bastionland.)



I don't think that 5e ever successfully had that feature though.  Players seem more desperate for every plus one they can get than ever before because it really makes a difference when it takes them from hitting on like a ten or eleven to a nine or ten... Especially when they have multiple attacks.  5.5/6e  would need to go back to something like 2e's 6/15 for - 1/+1 even if they keep the attributes on one uniform scale insiof six.  That larger gap raises the cost of a plus one & lowers the sting of a "low" Stat to the point where it actually makes questioning if shifting it is worth the cost/benefit


----------



## TwoSix

pemerton said:


> That would be a huge reworking for D&D, I think.



Oh, I'm not saying to make that change for D&D.  I'm just saying that if degrees of success on the combat roll matter to you, there are D&D-adjacent systems out there that accommodate it.


----------



## Mistwell

How about this as a fix for guidance.

Guidance: For one hour, you grant the target proficiency in one skill of your choice. If the target already has proficiency in that skill, they instead gain expertise in that skill. You can only have one guidance in effect at a time and you cannot dismiss this spell once active.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Mistwell said:


> How about this as a fix for guidance.
> 
> Guidance: For one hour, you grant the target proficiency in one skill of your choice. If the target already has proficiency in that skill, they instead gain expertise in that skill. You can only have one guidance in effect at a time and you cannot dismiss this spell once active.




That wouldn't be bad. I'm guessing no effect if the target has expertise though?


----------



## Mistwell

Chaosmancer said:


> That wouldn't be bad. I'm guessing no effect if the target has expertise though?



Yes. That at least offers some token protection for bounded accuracy


----------

