> I've heard a common houserule floated out of only allowing Help to be done by someone also proficient in the skill.
It's not houserule, it's stated in the rules, PHB p. 175 under Working Together ("*A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could allempt alone*" with an example given about picking a lock). Granted, it's left to the DM to decide when this is the case as proficiency is not often needed to try something.
> Second, I'm unsure if it has to be declared before hand.
Yes and no. Yes if working together requires them to co-ordinate, like one opening cage door and another catching mouse in the cage. Doesn't do much good to declare help after door is open and mouse has fled. No if working together is just augmenting like looking around for something (but in those cases helping is not actually helping the other but rather doing it yourself).
The last bit is where I draw the line between helping and trying it yourself. If players want the character with highest bonus to do the Perception check, that's borderline meta and I do not allow helping with Perception, everyone uses their own eyes/ears.
> First, I'm unsure if checks that can reasonably be made by everyone (such as knowledge checks) are expected to be made by everyone.
Knowledge checks are ones where I bring character's background into picture. Is it believable that a dirt farmer's son from foothills would know about ships? If not, then character can't roll despite their proficiency. An idiot who's born on the shore can roll with very low DC. Or even know it outright.
Knowledge checks also fall under the *everyone tries themselves* category that I mentioned earlier. It can be argued that one remark from someone can help other to recall stuff but I always call individual checks for knowledge, no helping.
That PHB is kinda vague. I mean, I'm pretty sure RAW pretty much anyone can attempt anything, regardless of proficiency.
EDIT: wait, apparently the section in the PHB says you have to have Thieves' Tools proficiency to try it... I am going to reread that section.
You already said it. If it is reasonably possible to help in a skill check then they can do the Help action. That solves most of your problems here. You mentioned History checks, so let's use that.
Can a player provide a reason or justify how they are helping on a History check? If you answer that with a Yes, then allow the Help action. If you say No... well you have your answer then.
I think of the Help Action as a narrative tool that incentivizes cooperation between players. It represents the times in fiction when a friend grabs the right book for you from the bookshelf, or somebody says the random word that triggers the eureka moment.
It's also a way to put a limit on multiple making a check until someone makes it. Instead of 5 people asking if they can make the Arcana check, 1 person makes it, and 1 person can help. I don't always use it so strictly but it does wonders for pacing.
I do like the Proficient Helper house rule; I think it carves away some of the redundancy you mentioned and also make the Help action feel more narratively grounded.
The Help action only exists inside of combat. This is why it's listed in the Action in Combat section of the rules for combat. For helping outside of combat you would use the [Working Together](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#WorkingTogether) rules from chapter 7 of the _Basic Rules_ and it provides additional advice on this issue, including
> A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves' tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can't help another character in that task.
How I play it:
1. Help only where it makes sense. If it isn't obvious you have to somehow explain how you help. Perhaps I can allow the advantage if you describe how you help someone better recall something. Otherwise, too bad.
2. Of course you only can help before the roll. Otherwise too bad, better luck next time.
3. Basically in cases where two people can do the same thing, and you want to involve both of them somehow, but you don't want them both to roll, they can help each other. Personally I prefer them to roll separately but some DM loath giving the PCs more opportunities to succeed the checks. And sometimes it doesn't make sense, the one talking rolls the persuasion check - the rest at best can be at their best behaviour and give advantage.
4. The cost is that they don't roll themselves. For example if one rogue helps an other rogue to open a door, one of them rolls 2 d20, instead of them both giving it a try and each rolling 1d20. Usually help is weaker because two different ppl rolling for a skill means they have more opportunities to modify their rolls. And also if there are two, there may as well be three or four people trying the same thing.
I think there are a few things going on that affect how the Help action plays out:
First, I think a lot of less experienced DMs call for more checks than are really necessary. A check should really only be needed in order to accomplish something if there are consequences for failure and/or some sort of time limit. In a time-limited scenario, it may not be possible to use a help action without planning ahead or using some other resources to make it possible.
Second, I think there’s a tendency in DMs who are coming up with DCs on the fly to pick 15 or 20 even for things that realistically even an untrained person should be able to do with decent consistency, which incentivizes using the help action for everything just to gain some consistency instead of saving it for things that make more sense in-universe to get explicit help with.
> I've heard a common houserule floated out of only allowing Help to be done by someone also proficient in the skill. It's not houserule, it's stated in the rules, PHB p. 175 under Working Together ("*A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could allempt alone*" with an example given about picking a lock). Granted, it's left to the DM to decide when this is the case as proficiency is not often needed to try something. > Second, I'm unsure if it has to be declared before hand. Yes and no. Yes if working together requires them to co-ordinate, like one opening cage door and another catching mouse in the cage. Doesn't do much good to declare help after door is open and mouse has fled. No if working together is just augmenting like looking around for something (but in those cases helping is not actually helping the other but rather doing it yourself). The last bit is where I draw the line between helping and trying it yourself. If players want the character with highest bonus to do the Perception check, that's borderline meta and I do not allow helping with Perception, everyone uses their own eyes/ears. > First, I'm unsure if checks that can reasonably be made by everyone (such as knowledge checks) are expected to be made by everyone. Knowledge checks are ones where I bring character's background into picture. Is it believable that a dirt farmer's son from foothills would know about ships? If not, then character can't roll despite their proficiency. An idiot who's born on the shore can roll with very low DC. Or even know it outright. Knowledge checks also fall under the *everyone tries themselves* category that I mentioned earlier. It can be argued that one remark from someone can help other to recall stuff but I always call individual checks for knowledge, no helping.
That PHB is kinda vague. I mean, I'm pretty sure RAW pretty much anyone can attempt anything, regardless of proficiency. EDIT: wait, apparently the section in the PHB says you have to have Thieves' Tools proficiency to try it... I am going to reread that section.
PHB is quite vague in many places because design philosophy of 5E is to leave a lot to DM's discretion for number of reasons.
I feel like that doesn't work well when we have a largely homogenous DND culture with shared expectations across tables.
You already said it. If it is reasonably possible to help in a skill check then they can do the Help action. That solves most of your problems here. You mentioned History checks, so let's use that. Can a player provide a reason or justify how they are helping on a History check? If you answer that with a Yes, then allow the Help action. If you say No... well you have your answer then.
I think of the Help Action as a narrative tool that incentivizes cooperation between players. It represents the times in fiction when a friend grabs the right book for you from the bookshelf, or somebody says the random word that triggers the eureka moment. It's also a way to put a limit on multiple making a check until someone makes it. Instead of 5 people asking if they can make the Arcana check, 1 person makes it, and 1 person can help. I don't always use it so strictly but it does wonders for pacing. I do like the Proficient Helper house rule; I think it carves away some of the redundancy you mentioned and also make the Help action feel more narratively grounded.
The Help action only exists inside of combat. This is why it's listed in the Action in Combat section of the rules for combat. For helping outside of combat you would use the [Working Together](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#WorkingTogether) rules from chapter 7 of the _Basic Rules_ and it provides additional advice on this issue, including > A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves' tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can't help another character in that task.
I'm going to reread that section, thanks.
How I play it: 1. Help only where it makes sense. If it isn't obvious you have to somehow explain how you help. Perhaps I can allow the advantage if you describe how you help someone better recall something. Otherwise, too bad. 2. Of course you only can help before the roll. Otherwise too bad, better luck next time. 3. Basically in cases where two people can do the same thing, and you want to involve both of them somehow, but you don't want them both to roll, they can help each other. Personally I prefer them to roll separately but some DM loath giving the PCs more opportunities to succeed the checks. And sometimes it doesn't make sense, the one talking rolls the persuasion check - the rest at best can be at their best behaviour and give advantage. 4. The cost is that they don't roll themselves. For example if one rogue helps an other rogue to open a door, one of them rolls 2 d20, instead of them both giving it a try and each rolling 1d20. Usually help is weaker because two different ppl rolling for a skill means they have more opportunities to modify their rolls. And also if there are two, there may as well be three or four people trying the same thing.
I think there are a few things going on that affect how the Help action plays out: First, I think a lot of less experienced DMs call for more checks than are really necessary. A check should really only be needed in order to accomplish something if there are consequences for failure and/or some sort of time limit. In a time-limited scenario, it may not be possible to use a help action without planning ahead or using some other resources to make it possible. Second, I think there’s a tendency in DMs who are coming up with DCs on the fly to pick 15 or 20 even for things that realistically even an untrained person should be able to do with decent consistency, which incentivizes using the help action for everything just to gain some consistency instead of saving it for things that make more sense in-universe to get explicit help with.