D&D 5E Group skill checks

[Blue]

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...

The idea with a group check is that the people better at something help those who aren't. The rogue checking that the paladin's armor is covered by leaves when they set up an ambush, that sort of thing.

So the mechanical result (>=half successes) means that the narrative result is everyone succeeds as a group. The sub-mechanical result (each individual check) are not part of the narrative in a screwed up/passed sort of way.

 

[billd91]

By using a group check, you’re making surprise much more easy to achieve.

More like possible to achieve. The more individual successes you need as independent trials, the more unlikely overall success is.

 

[iserith]

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.

I wouldn't use group checks to determine surprise. Group checks for Stealth would be more along the lines of getting past some guards in an exploration challenge. If we get into a combat challenge, then the DM determines surprise by the normal process.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

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

I've seen this suggested often. But I really dislike it. I don't think having people not roll the dies and use their high bonuses is especially rewarding for being good at stealth.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Just have the character with the lowest modifier roll.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've seen this suggested often. But I really dislike it. I don't think having people not roll the dies and use their high bonuses is especially rewarding for being good at stealth.

The high stealth bonus is still useful when hiding in combat, or when sneaking off on your own. But, I understand not wanting to incentivize party splitting. I don’t mind it myself, but I understand.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

In the case of five PCs, I'd still round down to two successes for a group check. If I thought that'd be too easy, I'd increase the DC rather than call for three successful checks. Maybe not a full step (i.e., from 15 to 20), but perhaps to 17 or 18.

 

[Hriston]

More like possible to achieve. The more individual successes you need as independent trials, the more unlikely overall success is.

Yes, and I think that’s desirable. I think it should be more difficult for a larger group to go unnoticed than it is for a smaller group. It’s a trade off.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

While the default is to round down, as others have said natural language is a big part of it.

Is 2 out of 5 "at least half"? No, it is most definitely less than half. But 3 out of 5 is "at least half".

Also, 5E rounds up often enough (like the default HP per level for classes if you don't want to roll...).

So, I run it rounding up in this case.

EDIT: If the text simply read "half" and not "at least half", then by the general rule of rounding down, I would only do 2, but I agree it feels a bit too easy in that case.

 

[Blue]

Yes, and I think that’s desirable. I think it should be more difficult for a larger group to go unnoticed than it is for a smaller group. It’s a trade off.

A party of five stealth experts, all who only need a 6+ to succeed, will only have a 24% chance of them all passing.

No, sorry, that's not the heroic game I want to play, especially if the group focused on all making steathy characters. That's just a lousy experience.