The half group skill check

[Crazy Jerome]

The half group skill check is a variant on a group skill check, where you only require half the group to meet the DC, for the whole group to succeed. If half the group can make the Balance check, they all make it across the chasm. If they fail, they all fail.

I suppose that technically belongs in house rules, but I'm not here mainly interested in the tweak itself. It is something that someone, I forget who, mentioned here, and I tried it.

The neat thing about it, which would work in any system, but seems especially productive in 4E with its half level skill bonus, is what it does to the psychology of the players when using skills.

The first thing I noticed was that as soon as we started using it, the players pushed harder in situations where it could be used. Got three guys that are sneaky and three that aren't? OK, just how tough are we talking on the challenge, and just how bad are the three that aren't? Suddenly, it is an option. An exciting option worth trying.

Second, the rolls of all those "marginal" people start to really matter. You "know" that the really good guys will make the check and the bad ones miss it. So it puts the focus precisely on those guys in the middle that normally don't get called out. We even had one dramatic attempt where the second best sneaker rolled a 1 and failed--and then as no one else bailed them out, the guy with a 3 skill rolled a 20 and succeeded! Normally, that would be anti-climatic, because even if forced to try a normal group check, the other failures would have ruined the luck of the low skill person.

Finally, the above changes the focus on improving skills. Those occasional skill training or skill focus feats look more attractive, when having that third character with a decent Arcana check makes the group viable at closing a network of arcane portals, for example.

I'm always interested to find ways to make a party with a good skill set matter, but this one kind of snuck up on me. It wasn't presented as that kind of change, but rather as something to make group checks a bit more palatable. I've found it to be much more than that, a very good fit for 4E, and wondered who else had tried it.

 

[Chzbro]

Really interesting observations. Makes me want to try it out. How often do you have to use this type of challenge each session in order to see results like you mention? In other words, would players still be interested in skill training if they only ran into this challenge once every other session?

I have tended to avoid group checks in the past, but this is making me re-evaluate that position.

 

[bargle0]

The half group skill check is a variant on a group skill check, where you only require half the group to meet the DC, for the whole group to succeed. If half the group can make the Balance check, they all make it across the chasm. If they fail, they all fail.

That's how group checks work now (RC, pg. 128).

 

[keterys]

I actually thought that was how group checks always worked.

I kinda prefer needing successes equal to 2 less than the number of PCs myself... ie, group of 6 needs 4, group of 4 needs 2. Reflects group ability to cover skill bases, assist each other, have relevant utilities or items, etc.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Really interesting observations. Makes me want to try it out. How often do you have to use this type of challenge each session in order to see results like you mention.

I have only used it in the last two sessions. Well, that is really more like 4 normal sessions, because we have long sessions. But I pushed it hard, because it was a change for us. So we probably averaged about 1 group check per hour.

I didn't realize this was an official change!

 

[Mengu]

I've always done group checks this way. All you need is half the group to succeed.

The only thing I've been thinking of lately is going against recommendation of making group checks Easy DC. Moderate DC is actually a better challenge I think, with a more real chance of failure. When I make the DC easy, with a lucky roll, even the paladin can save the group stealth check. With Moderate check requirements, people actually might put a little extra effort into making sure they can pass group checks, and a third person in that party of 6 might decide to train stealth. It also makes feats, powers, and abilities (like wilderness knacks) that give the entire group a bonus, more worthwhile.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've begun using the "only as strong as the weakest link" theory as a method for group skill checks in a skill challenge, which have also worked well for me thus far.

If the group is all doing the same thing (sneak, climb, balance, hiking endurance etc.)... whomever has the lowest skill rating is the one who is making the roll for success. Everyone else makes aid another checks at the Easy DC... if they succeed they grant that person a +2, if they fail they grant -1. Once all the mods have been determined, the person with the low skill score makes the check (and this is usually either an Easy or Mod DC check, dependent usually on the actual difficulty of the check, as well as how many players are at the table).

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

One interesting wrinkle for group checks is that they are actually harder for odd numbered groups than they are for even numbered ones.

For example, a group of 4 will succeed the check if 2 people pass their skills rolls (so, 50%). For a group of 5, to have half the PCs pass, 3 need to make their skill rolls - or 60% of the group.

 

[keterys]

In both groups, they succeed if no more than 2 people fail. That's not bad

And I've seen group checks were 5 needed 2, same as 4. And not like it's good for 6 to need 3 if 5 needs 3, either.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

In both groups, they succeed if no more than 2 people fail. That's not bad

And I've seen group checks were 5 needed 2, same as 4. And not like it's good for 6 to need 3 if 5 needs 3, either.

Sure, it's two fails for both - but thats 50% of the group for the 4 person party, and 40% for the 5 person one.

As for making 5 pass with 2 successes, you're simply shifting the math to "penalize" even numbered groups.

So really, there is no way around the math - its simply indicative of the way majorities work when the individual results are indivisible. Well, I suppose one could jigger the skill DCs for group checks for odd numbered groups to account for their added diificulty resulting from the "rounding error"... but for me it simply isn't a big enough annoyance to justify that effort.