D&D 5E Group skill checks

[Quickleaf]

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'm going to come at this from a different angle.

My experience has been that group checks work better with resolving questions of "to what degree" rather than binary succeed/fail results. I've seen them work best when there is more a spectrum of results.

So for a group Stealth, I might take either their average result or interpolate from their number of successes, and use that as guidance for determining how deep into hostile territory they penetrate before slowing the scene down to zoom in on the challenges they face.

 

[Horwath]

For group stealth checks.

two solutions, everyone rolls:

1. take lowest roll and apply highest individual stealth modifier.
2. take highest roll and apply lowest individual stealth modifier.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I never really concern myself with any of it and just make rulings on the fly of how and what is needed for it based upon what the group is doing. Because at the end of the day all that results mechanically is some people in the upcoming battle get an extra action. That's it. Some get to act in the first round of combat, some don't. And as I do not typically design encounters where the battles can be won or lost in that first round... who gets to go or doesn't is never really that big a deal-- monsters or party members. And thus trying to come up a unifying stealth theory for my game isn't really necessary.

 

[Blue]

My chance of succeeding at remaining unnoticed is better if I’m also helping my companion be stealthy than if I just have to worry about myself because of “teamwork”? Yeah, I’m not into that level of magical thinking.

Luckily it's not magical thinking. You don't think one character acting as lookout so another can cross when a guard is looking away can't help? You don't think one person can notice that the other person has something reflective on them, or is moving a little noisy and correct it before it becomes a problem? Give someone a boost to enter an airduct silently or a hand down so they don't drop as far (and as loundly) when coming down from a drop ceiling.

Normal, non-magical teamwork.

 

[Blue]

It’s unfun for you and therefore wrong for you.

If you are attempting to imply that "we create a whole team focused on stealth but the mechanics make that it fails the majority of the time" is only unfun for me, then you are just wrong.

 

[Ovinomancer]

For me, it’s better, yes. Why not? Then there’s an increased difficulty to bringing more power into a situation where being hidden is an advantage.

Is there? I mean, I'm not sure that this follows. More is not always harder in real life, why must it be in play? You're effectively using a probability issue with dice that is wholly unconnected to any action in the fiction and using it to say that because the dice make it harder it follows it must be harder in the fiction or that because you think some situations in the fiction should be harder then it's appropriate to use an unrelated probability function to represent that at all times. It's a tad strange to use probability to argue for in fiction difficulty or vice versa.

It was 3/4 in the example given (56/75), and I have no idea what the fiction is you’re imagining. If you have a specific example, I’d be happy to discuss.

56% is approximately 2/3rd of the success chance of 75%. I have a 3/4 chance of success to start and go to a 1/2 chance of success -- what do I multiply 3/4 by to get to 1/2?

As for the fiction, A fiction that can easily explain why two people sneaking can be better than one person sneaking. I only needed one example to show that the blanket claim that 2 is always harder to be false. The rest of the specifics don't really matter much.

 

[Blue]

For me, it’s better, yes. Why not? Then there’s an increased difficulty to bringing more power into a situation where being hidden is an advantage.

I think a disconnect here is that your explanations of "it's more difficult to sneak in more" are not in line with "it is near impossible to consistantly sneak in more" because of the nature of the checks. The penalty for the math seems a lot harsher than your statement.

And then when you combine that with D&D being a team game, taking a stance where "a team should never be able to do this even if all of them are good" is not one supported by the heroic fictional positioning of the game. That's not RAI. But if we allow group checks, it's both RAI and RAW. And RAF, the third criteria listed in the Sage Advice compendium.

 

[Hriston]

Luckily it's not magical thinking. You don't think one character acting as lookout so another can cross when a guard is looking away can't help? You don't think one person can notice that the other person has something reflective on them, or is moving a little noisy and correct it before it becomes a problem? Give someone a boost to enter an airduct silently or a hand down so they don't drop as far (and as loundly) when coming down from a drop ceiling.

Normal, non-magical teamwork.

I don’t know. None of those situations are part of what we were originally discussing. It’s all post hoc rationalization of your preferred method of resolution.

 

[Hriston]

If you are attempting to imply that "we create a whole team focused on stealth but the mechanics make that it fails the majority of the time" is only unfun for me, then you are just wrong.

No, I’m sure what you’re describing could be not fun for a lot of people.

 

[Hriston]

Is there? I mean, I'm not sure that this follows. More is not always harder in real life, why must it be in play? You're effectively using a probability issue with dice that is wholly unconnected to any action in the fiction and using it to say that because the dice make it harder it follows it must be harder in the fiction or that because you think some situations in the fiction should be harder then it's appropriate to use an unrelated probability function to represent that at all times. It's a tad strange to use probability to argue for in fiction difficulty or vice versa.

56% is approximately 2/3rd of the success chance of 75%. I have a 3/4 chance of success to start and go to a 1/2 chance of success -- what do I multiply 3/4 by to get to 1/2?

As for the fiction, A fiction that can easily explain why two people sneaking can be better than one person sneaking. I only needed one example to show that the blanket claim that 2 is always harder to be false. The rest of the specifics don't really matter much.

It’s more of a game balance issue. Coming up with a post hoc situation where your ruling might apply doesn’t help the discussion from my end. As I said up thread, if you want to discuss a particular situation, describe it, and I’ll let you know how I would adjudicate.