Hmm, I’m not sure what that looks like. Say the group doesn’t pass its check to get past, and the guards attack. Would you then allow those who would have passed individually to remain unnoticed/attack from hiding?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.
Yeah, the d20 is just too fickle for that method to work.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.
Yep, that seems like the easiest way to me, if it makes sense in the fictional context. Plus if it's a mixed group of monsters, some might be surprised and others not (depending on how the rolls went vs. the various PPs).Hmm, I’m not sure what that looks like. Say the group doesn’t pass its check to get past, and the guards attack. Would you then allow those who would have passed individually to remain unnoticed/attack from hiding?
I'm not averse to split parties, but yes, sitting out isn't much fun. Still, if I'm the party's stealth specialist, I fully expect to sneak somewhere by myself, because the noisy paladin, clanking around, could get me an arrow in the knee. Or worse.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.
To me, it's way more fun to play out, and maybe even make some rolls for, these separate actions you describe here. If the detail doesn't matter, and the DM wants to breeze over it, then it doesn't really call for a check, either.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.
I think it’s reasonable that chances of total party success would decrease the more members of the party there are. Apparently you find this amount of decrease unreasonable/un-fun.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.
I think it’s reasonable that chances of total party success would decrease the more members of the party there are. Apparently you find this amount of decrease unreasonable/un-fun.
What I find unreasonable is for two characters to have a 94% chance of remaining unnoticed when each of them on their own only has a 75% chance. This runs counter to what I would expect, not to mention genre considerations about stealthy characters operating solo. What explanation is there for their chances being so much better?
Yeah, that makes sense. Personally, when calling for a group check I abide by the group succeeding or failing as a group, which in this case would mean that either they are all noticed or they all remain unnoticed. As I said though, I wouldn’t call for a group check to resolve such an attempt due to the possibility of some individuals being noticed while others are not.Yep, that seems like the easiest way to me, if it makes sense in the fictional context. Plus if it's a mixed group of monsters, some might be surprised and others not (depending on how the rolls went vs. the various PPs).
I think it's better to use group Stealth checks only when the outcome is something other than battle. A failed check might mean, for example, that the PCs' presence is noticed after they sneak past the guards - tracks were left behind or a dog picks up on their scent, or whatever. Perhaps the next part of the challenge becomes harder as a result. This keeps it in the realm of an exploration challenge instead of complicating matters with surprise rules in a combat challenge.Yeah, that makes sense. Personally, when calling for a group check I abide by the group succeeding or failing as a group, which in this case would mean that either they are all noticed or they all remain unnoticed. As I said though, I wouldn’t call for a group check to resolve such an attempt due to the possibility of some individuals being noticed while others are not.