D&D 5E Group skill checks

[Professor Murder]

So, according to the PHB, when a group skill check happens, if at least half the characters involved succeed, the group succeeds. Where I would expect this to come up most often is Stealth checks when moving as a group. Success would be overcoming the passive Perceptions of any possible foes. My question is that the wording reads "at least half." So since in DnD you always round down, if you had say 5 PCs, do they need only 2 successes? It feels a bit too easy. I'm not asking RAW. I'm asking what people think.

 

[commandercrud]

Most often lately, I'd just ask the PC with the lowest stealth score to make the roll for the group.

But if I was going to make everyone roll? I'd say 3 successes needed, and anyone that rolls a natural 1 counts as 2 fails and any natural 20 counts as 2 successes.

 

[Charlaquin]

I no would say no. Two is not at least half of five.

 

[J.Quondam]

"at least half" means what it means in "natural language." So in a party of 5 PCs, they need 3 or more to succeed. Otherwise it's not "at least half".

 

[el-remmen]

I use these kinds of group checks a lot and have run it like @Charlaquin and @J.Quondam describe above.

 

[overgeeked]

So, according to the PHB, when a group skill check happens, if at least half the characters involved succeed, the group succeeds. Where I would expect this to come up most often is Stealth checks when moving as a group. Success would be overcoming the passive Perceptions of any possible foes. My question is that the wording reads "at least half." So since in DnD you always round down, if you had say 5 PCs, do they need only 2 successes? It feels a bit too easy. I'm not asking RAW. I'm asking what people think.

I run “at least half” to mean “at least half,” not divide by two, round down. Party of five, at least three must succeed.

 

[LordEntrails]

Stealth is the one place I don't like group checks. It only takes one person to make noise... But, I also dont' like having everyone roll either. Haven't come up with a process I like yet.

 

[GMMichael]

Most often lately, I'd just ask the PC with the lowest stealth score to make the roll for the group.

Yeah, I don't know how almost half of your group can screw something up and still consider it a success. Especially with sneaking. But, you know, D&D...

 

[billd91]

Stealth is the place the group check is needed most for the flow of the game and the broadening of potential adventures/situations without having to resort to split parties and players sitting out of the action for too long.

The presumption isn't that someone is "failing" in any specific way as much as the group as a whole sinks or swims based on a shared task. It could mean that the ones with the successful rolls are helping the ones who aren't rolling so well. Maybe helping them time their movements to avoid the patrol passing by the side corridor, catching the goblet the one with the poor roll almost knocked from the table, grabbing the scabbard just before it scrapes against the wall and gives the group away.

 

[Hriston]

I wouldn’t ask for a group check to resolve a group’s attempt to sneak. According to the rules, group checks are “most useful when all the characters succeed or fail as a group.” In the case of sneaking, on the other hand, each character succeeds or fails individually. This is made obvious when you consider that a creature is not surprised if it notices a single threat. By using a group check, you’re making surprise much more easy to achieve.