I think we need a general rule for group skill checks. Something that still makes sense why the clunkers shouldn't go on stealth missions, but doesn't have the nonsensical situation where the super-sneaky assassins can't sneak anywhere. Maybe just roll once, using the best (or worst, depending on which makes sense) modifier of the whole group?
There was something like that in 3e, although now I checked the SRD and I can only find it for the
Listen skill:
"When several characters are listening to the same thing, a single 1d20 roll can be used for all the individuals’ Listen checks."
I guess this assumes you only have one roll result, but then apply each PC's modifier to it separately, thus you still have one result per PC. In case of
Listen, this pretty much equates to simply using the best modifier. Same would be for
Spot, but the opposite would be used for
Stealth.
How about, for each roll over 5 you gain an extra success that can be used to offset a failure by another party member ... at least for Steath
I don't think I would like that...
I know it sucks when the worst PC brings failure to the whole party, but in its own way it really makes sense. You can argue that a super-sneaking-expert should be able to help a noisy character be less noisy. I would argue that it
may or
may not, but "should" is an opinion, not a fact. Being great at sneaking doesn't
necessarily imply being able to make someone else sneak better
simultaneously.
We actually had the "
aid another" rules in 3e (not sure they're still in 5e too) for a PC to improve someone else's skill (or attack) roll result, but the price to pay was generally that you have to spend your time
aiding rather than doing that action yourself. Makes sense for example in climbing: one PC dragging and pulling another up, but the overall cost is reduced speed (i.e. making once a check to climb yourself and another to help another, in the same time while you could have made two climb actions if you were alone). Makes less sense for skills like perception, at least it's hard to explain how you can improve someone's senses just because your own are great.
When has D&D ever been realistic? In 2E you can wrestle a dragon and make it innefective (it can't use its claws or breath weapon and can only deal 1d4 damage to you each round max), in 4E the laws of physics go right out the window sometimes, in 3.5E magic can do anything and everything and all for the low low cost of some flying rodent droppings. Why do people continue to harp on the 'realism' angle. It simply does not exist in D&D.
Realism trumps gamism.
For the simple reason that a game based on realistic assumptions can always easily made super-heroic (i.e. unrealistic) by adding spells and supernatural powers, as you say magic can do anything. That game supports all range of fantasy, from no-magic to godslike.
But if you throw away realism and base the common (i.e. affecting everyone, magic or not) rules of the game on unrealistic outcomes, only the gamist playstyle is supported, suspension of disbelief becomes harder, and a lot of people simply cannot stand such a game and walk away.
I didn't come up with the idea that 5e has to be inclusive of as many gamestyles as possible... it was WotC's decision, but now the consequence is that realism is more important in 5e than in every previous edition.
(PS: "realism" is very different from "simulationism")
