Group skill checks

[Neubert]

I am looking for inspiration on how to do group skill checks where a single low roll penalizes the entire party (like stealth) and a single high roll benefits the entire party (such as perception).

How do you handle checks such as these?

Thanks in advance!

 

[OnlineDM]

Usually a group skill check is one where the successful PCs can compensate for the failure of the unsuccessful PCs. I don't think that's what you're talking about in this case; you're just asking for an X check from everyone, and if anyone fails (Stealth) or anyone succeeds (Perception) then the consequences happen.

A group skill check is typically something more like, "You're all trying to trek through the wilderness at a fast pace for hours; give me a group Endurance check." If at least half the party succeeds, you can say that the more enduring PCs help pull the others along or lift their spirits or what have you.

You COULD do a group Stealth check, but in that case it would be a success as long as at least half the party succeeds. You could flavor that as saying that the stealthier PCs are watching out for other PCs stepping on twigs, or covering up their mouths as they start to cough. But that doesn't sound like what you're looking for here.

So to sum up, I wouldn't call this a group skill check; I'd call it, "Everyone give me a check." It's a bunch of individual checks, not a group check.

 

[keterys]

Yeah, it's easy enough to just say:
Everyone roll Perception - check if any made Hard DC, if so, they get it.
Everyone roll Stealth - check if any failed Easy DC, if so, they fail it.

But you can tweak group checks, changing the number of successes required by 1, using Easy, Moderate, or Hard DCs... allowing Hard DCs to negate failures, or making another check lead into another. If you're familiar with LFR at all, we experimented with some of these things in EPIC3-2, and if you look at CALI3-3 you can see a bit more experimentation with the concept of handling group checks in different ways.

 

[Dan'L]

Depending on the situation, one way we've handled this situation is to have one PC be the "primary" roll (decided before any rolls are made), with all the others rolling to aid. If someone rolls low, it's a -1 to the group check, so it balances out.

With something like Perception, it's easy to just let the players decide who the "primary" will be. With Stealth, I suppose you could make the PC with the lowest Skill bonus be the primary, with everyone else helping Sir Clanksalot move sneaky & quiet.

-Dan'L

 

[Steve Jung]

Sometimes our DM averages the checks and compares the number to the DC.

 

[Dedekind]

Revenge of the Giants uses a mechanic where the whole party rolls and if the majority succeeds the group gets one success.

I'm not sure what you would do about a 50/50 split, though.

 

[Alphastream]

Revenge of the Giants uses a mechanic where the whole party rolls and if the majority succeeds the group gets one success.

I'm not sure what you would do about a 50/50 split, though.

The core mechanic for a group check is "at least half the group succeeds".

Skill challenges should always feed off of the DM's story. Here are some fun things to consider:

• A primary skill by one PC to "chart the course" and it can assist or penalize a group check. (Ex: Perception or Nature by one PC to navigate the wilderness, then Endurance by all PCs as a group check (+/-2 depending on the initial PC's check).
• Group check, but all DCs are hard and each check is a skill of the PC's choice (that the DM approves). Half must succeed. (Ex: Gala dinner, the PCs need to uncover some information, each is interacting with the other NPCs and must first pass a group check to "fit in". Failure applies a penalty to future checks (perhaps by that PC, perhaps to everyone).)
• Series of checks where strategies are chosen and each check affects others. (Ex: PCs are crossing a wilderness, various tasks are listed and there is a matching skill (reveal or not depending on your style). Each PC chooses one and they are rolled in order that they are done. History to recall details, Nature to chart a course, Athletics to climb the cliff, Endurance to lead a path through the thorny brush, etc. Each failure wears down the team, using up supplies, draining surges, and/or causing future skill check penalties.)

I really like to shake things up with skill checks. It keeps things interesting and does a good job of mixing the metagame and the story in varied ways.

 

[wedgeski]

The problem of group Stealth really kicked my group in the nuts over the weekend. It seems no matter what PC's they're playing, there's always one with a negative Stealth score. At the moment they're handling it by keeping the noisy ones back a ways from the party... but at some point they'll fall foul of that as well.

I don't know about this yet. I don't like "at least half the group succeeds" because frankly that trivialises most checks. I also don't like the group being only as good as its weakest link.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

If there is some confusion about group skill checks that's not surprising, as WotC has put our three different set of rules as to how to do them. To quote one of my own posts from another recent thread on this topic:

Their first appearance is in the DMG at page 75 under "Group Checks". Under those rules, one character makes the roll (presumably the best character) and the others essentially "aid other" for that roll.

They also appear in the DMG2 at page 85 under "Group Checks", where there rules were changed to have everyone make the check and to succeed the group needed "a certain number of successes." It then gives 2 examples: an endurance group check that needed 50% of the checks to pass, and a perception group check which needed only one success.

I don't have the DM's Kit, so I can't say what is in there... but presumably its the same as in the Rules Compendium.

The Rules Compendium at page 128 under "Group Checks" sets the DC for group checks at "easy" and requires half the group to succeed.


So, yes, group checks have existed in 4e since the beginning, but the rules have changed somewhat with each itteration.

 

[Alphastream]

The problem of group Stealth really kicked my group in the nuts over the weekend. It seems no matter what PC's they're playing, there's always one with a negative Stealth score. At the moment they're handling it by keeping the noisy ones back a ways from the party... but at some point they'll fall foul of that as well.

I don't know about this yet. I don't like "at least half the group succeeds" because frankly that trivialises most checks. I also don't like the group being only as good as its weakest link.

I recommend experimenting with different skills, DCs, and situations. First and foremost I prefer to have a skill challenge be all about story and player choice. So, before we get to stealth checks I would want there to be a compelling premise (explaining why PCs don't want to be observed doing something) and a good mood/tone (a feeling of anxiety that they might get caught). The rolling would hopefully be preceded by good RP (a PC might apply black face paint or describe how they stick to the shadows), which could provide situational modifiers or just be fun RP. Once the rolls are made I like to let the players RP the result or help them do so. A failure inside a house might represent how a PC knocks over a vase... but if enough PCs succeed then another stealthier PC catches it before it crashes to the ground. For that reason I like to see how the rolls come out and then RP an interaction and weave a story of what took place (in response to what they described before or after the roll).

In terms of DCs, it depends on the party whether something is easy or not. In any skill challenge I like to think about whether this truly needs to be challenging. Just as with a combat encounter, it is fine to have some easy ones. If you really want a challenge then you need to develop what will happen if there is failure. Ideally this is a significant story impact and not just "lose a surge, carry on". Failure when there are high stakes should feel that way. In a cross-country trek, failure might use up more rations/survival days than they should have, leaving them short for the rest of the trip. In an attempt to escape an evil city it might leave them wounded and place more guards on the escape route. These should be tangible results ("as you near the gate you see a squad of guards arrive. It is likely your foe has determined your escape route!")