The half group skill check

[keterys]

You could change the DC, but in my personal experience, the "max 2 failures" actually works well, because as party size increases, the number of ways the party can increase dice results increase.

That is to say, I actually have seen more failed checks from a group of 4 looking for 2 successes than a group of 6 looking for 4 successes, even though your numbers indicate that's heavily in favor of the 4 (50% vs 66.7%)

That's why I had the number of successes required be 2 for a group of 4, 3 for a group of 5, and 4 for a group of 6 in EPIC3-2. And I'm sticking with that experience.

 

[Ryujin]

In Revenge of the Giants there are several places where they use group checks, in which the group succeeds if more make the DC than fail it.

On group stealth checks I've been using a very different rule, for quite some time. I have only the worst stealth number make the roll, with any characters who are actually skilled in stealth being able to aid that character. Quick, easy, and the players seem to like it.

 

[Gronin]

I am currently running a dark sun campaign and have been using group checks as something the group does on a daily basis in order to find food/water and avoid getting lost. It also sets up whether or not any encounters that day will involve surprise for one side or the other.

I would like to take credit for this but i found the mechanics for it in one of the Dark Sun modules (didn't use the module but steal a few things from it -- this mechanic included).

I would think this kind of thing could be translated into any campaign in any setting.

I would agree with some of the other posters in this thread that the difficulty needs to be adjusted upwards but other than that it seems to work well and the players also really enjoy it as it gives them opportunities to use their skills.

Now on to my question....some of the comments earlier in this thread would seem to indicate that group skill checks are part of the 4E rule set and have been since the beginning -- is this correct and if so where would I find them?

Thanks

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

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.

 

[keterys]

Aside: Half make the check, at easy DC, is _waaaaaaay_ too easy for most checks.

For the occasional, "sneak past the arguing drunk guards", sure. But for "sneak past the guards who are actually trying to be guards"... nah, moderate is fine.

 

[fuzzlewump]

For odd groups, flip a coin. Heads, it requires half the group rounded up to succeed. Tails, it requires half the group rounded down to succeed.

Let the characters roll the skill checks first, and let the coin (or dice, of course) be the deciding factor if only half the players rounded down succeed (as opposed to rolling it each time, the majority of the time it won't come down to that.)

That's what I did when I did group skill checks, worked most dandy.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

For odd groups, flip a coin. Heads, it requires half the group rounded up to succeed. Tails, it requires half the group rounded down to succeed.

I might try a variant where with an odd group, the middle character must roll twice, and both rolls count for successes and failures. Basically, you assume that the one in the middle is replicated as another character to get the group to even.

I like that because it puts a premium on the middle guy, for skill purchases. With a group of five, there is thus a big difference between having a third person with at least a decent skill. If it is decent, you get something close to the coin split anyway, since the character will often split. But if the character has not invested in the skill or has invested heavily, your "coin flip" now scales with that investment more naturally.

That wouldn't necessarily match everyone's goals, but I like it.

 

[Ryujin]

I always just round up. It's a tough world.

 

[Noumenon]

How do you guys narrate the results of the group checks? It's always seemed like a huge stretch to me saying "Two of you are slower than the monster, but the two fast ones pulled them along by the hand" or "two of you can't jump the chasm, but the other two showed you the diving board by the side" or whatever. That's why I've been thinking of making the succeeding characters make skill checks to make up for the other characters' failures.

 

[jbear]

I do group checks differently mainly because I think any failure should be meaningful.

For example:

The entire group has to walk across a wire to get from one building to the next, 4 stories up. 4 pass the check. The fifth fails.

So what has happened? What does that failure mean?

In the 50% is all good version of group checks precisely very little has happened, probably at best the DM will describe a sudden misstep which another PC has caught in time and you move on. So failure here is meaningless.

But what if the DM instead takes the 50% rule means success, but a failure is meaningful and must be resolved approach, the approach I take. Well, I would perhaps rule that the player who failed has fallen from the rope but managed to get tangled in a clothes line a floor down.

In all this I would have allowed one of the PCs to lead the group check, directing the others and able to counteract failures, but in the off chance this safety net fails than the dynamics of the situation have changed to a degree that a hurdle has been met and must be resolved before the group can carry on towrds their goal.

Perhaps the clothes line has snapped and the fallen PC tangled in the clothes line has swung through the open window of the building where the group was headed and interrupted someone's intimacy who needs to be calmed before they alert anyone to their presence and then find their way stealthily back to the group, or climb back out the window and climb up the wall 2 foors to the roof or ... etc etc.

In this case, the failure is meaningful. The group is successful, they've all reached the building they wanted to get to, but the individual has to face a new and possibly dangerous situation that needs resolution, which other members of the group can involve themselves with also, in order to proceed any further.

I find this handling of the 50% group check success much more fun, dynamic and satisfying.