D&D 5E Asymmetrical stealth

[iserith]

You know what I hate more than lack of realism? Players setting out twiddling their thumbs cause only those with really high stealth checks explore and scout ahead!

They sit out a whole 1/3 of the game if you play as you described.

Nobody's forcing anybody to do that though. If it's not fun to hang back, then... don't?

 

[Ancalagon]

whereas the group just moving around together does not benefit from that because they've done nothing in particular to enhance their chances.

In other words, they fail. That is what you are effectively deciding. I'm not sure if that is your intent but that is the result.

A group check is implicitly a collaborative effort.


Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Uller]

You know what I hate more than lack of realism? Players setting out twiddling their thumbs cause only those with really high stealth checks explore and scout ahead!

They sit out a whole 1/3 of the game if you play as you described.

Yes. DnD is a role playing GAME. We can't forget the game part. It needs to be playable and fun. It is not much fun if everyone is hanging back while one or two sneaky characters scout everything.

But there are times where rolling for everyone makes sense. And times when it doesn't. If the whole party is making athletic checks to jump a chasm unless the players are doing something creative I'd have them each roll separately. But if 30 goblns are chasing them and have to make the leap? Nope...not making 30 rolls. I'll make one roll and if it succeeds, only a few gobos fall. If it fails maybe 3d6 fall...keep the game moving. Don't build in too many incentives to split the party.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[jgsugden]

You know what I hate more than lack of realism? Players setting out twiddling their thumbs cause only those with really high stealth checks explore and scout ahead!

They sit out a whole 1/3 of the game if you play as you described.

Although the fine implementation has changed over time, the core concept is the same as I have been using since the 80s. Your estimation of 33% of the time sitting around is way off.

Typically, and I do mean very commonly, it works out in one of the two following ways when the PCs try to sneak up on an enemy:

* Stealthy folks try to sneak up and succeed. They launch a surprise round. During the surprise round the sneaky folks unload on the enemy and the loud folks 'double move' to get within striking range. In the first real round of combat, the entire party is attacking.

* Stealthy folks try to sneak up and fail. The enemy seems them and there is no surprise round. Both sides engage in combat with the loud folks needing to double move in round one to catch up to the combat and participate in round two fully. Alternatively, they move up slowly and use ranged abilities to contribute for rounds 1 and 2 and are not in melee range until round 3 or 4 - their choice.

In 4E, where rounds took so long, it was more of a problem. In 5E, it works beautifully, makes sense, and contributes logically to a story that helps separate a great RPG from a bunch of strategy games.

 

[robus]

In other words, they fail. That is what you are effectively deciding. I'm not sure if that is your intent but that is the result.

A group check is implicitly a collaborative effort.

Agreed and as DM I determine whether the group has collaborated enough for the bonus (which is not that hard but I want to hear some kind of group plan ) If they've not done anything to warrant a group check then why do they get to roll that way?

If they want some bonus then just saying we all "do the same thing" is too vague to earn a group check IMHO.

 

[iserith]

I don't even view this ruling through the lens of "realism." Gaining surprise is a serious advantage. If you want to consistently surprise monsters in my game, you had better choose the classes, features, and gear plus expend the right resources to try to make that happen. I'm not going to just give it to you via a group check. My monsters won't get group checks either.

 

[Sunseeker]

I let my party make group stealth checks. It's d20+(average of their stealth scores).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Just roll individually for the grouped enemies. Five goblins will probably fail to sneak up on anyone, because one of them will chance over a twig. Ambush predators don't work in groups.

Surprise is an exception rather than that the rule. Don't worry if it never comes up.

 

[Ancalagon]

I don't even view this ruling through the lens of "realism." Gaining surprise is a serious advantage. If you want to consistently surprise monsters in my game, you had better choose the classes, features, and gear plus expend the right resources to try to make that happen. I'm not going to just give it to you via a group check. My monsters won't get group checks either.

Group checks are not "given". They can only be somewhat reliable if a majority of the party is decent at stealth. If you have one rogue and 3 clankers, it's probably not going to happen!



Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

Group checks are not "given". They can only be somewhat reliable if a majority of the party is decent at stealth. If you have one rogue and 3 clankers, it's probably not going to happen!

Sure, but still more reliable than individual Dexterity (Stealth) checks.