idea about stealth

[Razz0putin]

So I was thinking about the stealth rules and the way they work. I was thinking that since several people have to make several rolls it's just a matter of time until someone fails not because the party isn't good at sneaking but because the odds go up so high so fast. So my idea on how to fix this is to have one person lead the party and make the overall roll while all other members of the stealth squad make rolls against DC 10 like an aid another roll. If they make the roll then the lead character doesn't get a higher difficultly, if they fail then it is a higher difficulty maybe +2 to +4. This way you could actually have mission impossible kind of cool stealth things going on instead of just nope you failed now it's going to devolve into a big fight.

feedback please and what do you think the Difficulty increase for failure should be?

 

[silentspace]

I think your analysis is dead on, which always bothered me a little. But it seems the rules aren't really made to be used as written - there are many examples in published WoTC modules where a bunch of creatures make a single roll, or a bunch of creatures all are assumed to take 10 (ie have a fixed listen or spot result, which the pcs roll against)

 

[Woocash]

For me, it seems quite obvious, that it is much easier to spot/hear a group of people sneaking than a single person. The more of them, the more noise they make and there is a greater chance that one of them makes a wrong move and is seen. The game mechanics reflect it just as it should.

That is why you send a single man as a scout, not a big group.

 

[Rhun]

I don't see a problem with doing it that way. If you think about it, when your party is sneaking about, if one of the PCs is being loud, then the other characters in the party are going to know it just as much as anyone down the hall or behind a door.

I think using the method Razz0putin suggests has some definite merit.

 

[RandomPrecision]

While I like Razz0putin's method, I wouldn't employ it. Someone jumping and screaming would fail their stealth roll and add +2 to the rogue's roll, and a good rogue will probably make their roll anyway. The thing is, having a good rogue can't make the rest of the party move silently. For hiding or disguise, I might use rules like Razz0putin proposed, but Move Silently is one case where I wouldn't do that. No matter what a nimble halfling thief does, the clumsy orc barbarian/fighter in as much armor as he can hold up is still going to make some noise.

 

[Razz0putin]

That is why you send a single man as a scout, not a big group.[/QUOTE]

I agree it should be harder for a group of people sneaking than for a single person. what I don't like is if you have to make to many rolls even if you should make it the more rolls you have to make the more likelyhood of a 1 or equally lousy #. The thing that always gets me thinking about this is the Army advertisement. Where there's mabye eight very skilled and prepared guys sneaking up on another group and I think yeah well that wouldn't work in my game somebody'd roll a 1. and there goes the cool stealth. I'm not saying they should automatically succeed just because their skilled. They just shouldn't autamatically fail because they took along a few members.

 

[Razz0putin]

While I like Razz0putin's method, I wouldn't employ it. Someone jumping and screaming would fail their stealth roll and add +2 to the rogue's roll, and a good rogue will probably make their roll anyway. The thing is, having a good rogue can't make the rest of the party move silently. For hiding or disguise, I might use rules like Razz0putin proposed, but Move Silently is one case where I wouldn't do that. No matter what a nimble halfling thief does, the clumsy orc barbarian/fighter in as much armor as he can hold up is still going to make some noise.

thanks I'm kinda working it out as I go. that's why I'm putting this out here. thanks for all who gave feedback.
as for someone jumping and screaming I wouldn't even bother to roll.
I suggest that first you leave the clumsy orc back with the party
and a skilled sneaker can help the party by pointing out (literally else it wouldn't be stealth) where things like twigs or leaves are. however maybe what I need is a system where everyone tries to make a DC 10 and however much any member misses adds to the total

 

[Telas]

Not a bad idea. I generally DM a party of 6-8, and someone always blows a Hide or Move Check. It's really frustrating, because I usually leave a "stealth option" on most of my modules.

How about everyone rolls against a DC15 (or whatever the DM decrees, see below), and you add/subtract 2 to the roll for every 5 points you make/fail the roll by?

So your proverbial Half-Orc in full plate with no Dex rolls a 1, which modifies to a -5. He affects the Rogue's (or whoever's) roll by -8 points (15 - -5 = 20 / 5 = 4 x 2 = 8). Even if he rolls a 20, he can't positively affect the die roll positively.

You could set the DC by determining what it would be if you assumed the listener "took 10". So a critter with a +8 Listen requires you to beat a DC18. You don't need to tell the PCs what the DC is.

This admittedly adds complication to the game, and I generally try to simplify things, but it occured to me when I read the idea....

Telas

 

[Liquidsabre]

Why doesn't taking 10 work for a large group of characters? Taking 10 should work just fine for both PCs and NPCs alike.

In fact, when a party goes "stealth" like that you know exatly what the lowest stealth check will be and with an NPC/creature you will know what their take 10 for perception will be, allowing the DM to know exactly at what distance the party is heard/spotted (distance factored in as this increases the DC for the PCs to be perceieved). So where does this break down? Sorry, I don't see any problems here. Though perhaps I'm not looking hard enough, help?

 

[Coredump]

The problem with this method is that it allows one person to make up for many many others.

"I am tired of my thieves not hitting as often, so I will just have one person roll to hit, and if they succeed, the whole party hit that round."
Hmmmm... maybe not.


Yes it is easy for SneakyBoy to get in and out of the 'fort' once. Could he do it 10 times? He might, but he might get caught once.... and that is how it should be. (unless he is ungodly good at it.)
Well the same logic should happen if 10 guys try and sneak in one time.

They should be able to take 10 when sneaking in.... and in any case, a 1 is not an automatic failure anyway.

I could see the problem if you have a group of 6 super ninja's, and if a 1 was a failure, but you are talking about a mixed bag of troops, and a one is just a bad roll.

Stealth operations are made up of the smallest number of people that can reasonably get the job done. There is a reason for that.