D&D 5E Group skill checks

[Ovinomancer]

I didn’t think it was necessary to explicate the way I handle stealth in my game until you asked, considering that the conversation up to that point was focused on checks rather than on how stealth is handled in a broader sense. For instance, I have no idea how you or anyone else involved in this discussion handles stealth in their games. Admittedly, I think this does make these conversations somewhat difficult.

How a mechanic interacts with the game was under discussion. You had changed the game, but didn't mention it in the discussion where you were offering opinion about the mechanic. I think it's reasonable to assume that you were using the same baseline as others. Had you mentioned you had departed baseline, somewhat extensively it seems, that would have made a difference in the conversation.

 

[Professor Murder]

I think the question at hand has already been answered, and I agree that "at least half" means no less than 50% without rounding, so 2 out of 5 is not enough, but 2 out of 4 is.

---

On the more general topic of group checks, I think it's a great 5e rule, even though I do not use it in every circumstances.

My quick way to choose whether to use it or not is to ask myself: "is the group going to succeed/fail as a whole?" and if the answer is yes, then probably a group check is the way to go.

Some examples...

1) The group is trying to climb over a castle wall to get inside -> group Strength(Athletic) check vs fixed DC

The idea is that if the purpose is for the whole group to get past the wall, they either all make it, or even those who would make it decide not to, in order not to split the party. The group check represents the best climbers helping out the worst climbers, but possibly being dragged down by the effort.

2) The group is trying to convince the king to provide them shelter -> group Charisma(Persuasion) check vs fixed DC

Here the idea is that even if only one person does the talking, the behaviour of the comrades matters. Maybe the king notices that one of the allies looks suspicious, has bad manners, or just farted... all of which can negatively condition the talking. If they are instead behaving properly even if not talking in first person, they can subtly increase the chances of success by making the whole group look more believable.

I like using group checks in social situations because of a few reasons. One of them is that it helps avoiding the old cliché when one PC maximizes Charisma and everybody else dumps it, viceversa it rewards every point spent by anyone on that Charisma score. Then it also encourages the players to participate in roleplaying the encounter without fear that their not-specialized character will individually be responsible of failure, because their own roll result is lumped together with the others. And no, it doesn't help to send only the Bard do the talking and everybody else doesn't even get into the room to avoid rolling, because numbers make might and 1 person instead of a small army of 5 trying to convince the king means the DC will be higher in that case.

3) Navigating a dungeon/forest when lost -> group Intelligence/Wisdom(Survival) check vs fixed DC

Should it happen that the group gets lost, instead of roleplaying an hour of randomly trying directions, I give them a group check to find the right way. This is very much a group effort, because even if the best PCs would more easily find the way if they were alone, since they are in the group the others will want their opinion to matter, and can lead even the ones who would get it right to be convinced into making a mistake.

4) Sneaking past enemies to avoid a fight -> group Dexterity(Stealth) check vs passive Perception (if routinely aware) or Perception checks (if actively searching for the PCs)

If the purpose if to wholly avoid a fight, then the group succeeds or fails as a whole, and it doesn't matter who spoiled the effort.

Here the slight complication is that, when there is more than one enemy, they might have different passive Perception scores or check results. But as a matter of fact, it only matters if ONE of the enemy notices the PCs, so I only need to compare the group checks with the highest Perception score/result of all the enemies. Then the sneaking effort is spoiled, the group is discovered and the enemies alert each other. If it turns into a battle (it doesn't always have to), nobody is surprised.

5) Making an ambush -> group Dexterity(Stealth) check vs passive Perception or Perception checks

This is different: the PCs are trying to stay unnoticed but ALSO try to get an advantage when they start the fight. Barring rare cases when they might decide not to attack after all at the very last instant, they WILL attack. For surprise, it does matter whether each one of the enemies notices them before it's too late or not, so the group check results are compared to each one of the enemies passive scores or checks. Which one between passive or roll, it depends on whether I care for some variety or not... most of the times I prefer the monsters to roll, but if there are too many of them, then I might roll once per group of monsters with the same Perception score (e.g. one roll for all orcs, one for all bandits etc.); other times I just don't care and I use their passive scores even if that means less randomness.

This case works notably differently when the monsters are making an ambush against the PCs. In that case I hate that the best PCs are never surprised if the worst PCs are not, and viceversa that the worst PCs are always surprised if the best PCs are, which is what you get when using passive Perception, so I always ask the players to roll Perception for surprise.

---

A notable case when I DON'T use group checks is with Knowledge skills. You can use them if you like, but personally I always treat knowledge a bit differently from all other skills. There is always a potentially immense amount of lore that may or may not be known, but at the same time I like having fantasy worlds based on scarcity of knowledge source (very unlike our real world). I want there to be a REAL difference between characters who study a field of knowledge and those who don't, not just a few points of difference on a d20 check. Because of that, I enforce rule 0 to not even allow a Knowledge check to a PC that is not proficient on the specific field of lore: you either invest in the proficiency, or you're not going to answer any question except the most basic. But then for basic common knowledge such as "who is the goddess of Magic?" or "what's the nearest city north of Waterdeep?" I won't even require a roll. That means I hardly even have to consider group Knowledge checks, but if it happens than multiple PCs have the same Knowledge proficiency, then I still don't use group checks but instead reward them more by having EACH of them roll separately so that ONE succeeding is enough.

This was very thoughtful and helpful. Thank you.

 

[Hriston]

How a mechanic interacts with the game was under discussion. You had changed the game, but didn't mention it in the discussion where you were offering opinion about the mechanic. I think it's reasonable to assume that you were using the same baseline as others. Had you mentioned you had departed baseline, somewhat extensively it seems, that would have made a difference in the conversation.

Like I said, I have no idea what baseline others are using and to what extent they have “changed the game” to get there. I don’t think we need to dismiss one another’s approaches to running the game as “house rules” as if some other approach has a more legitimate claim to orthodoxy. The rules I have referenced are officially published, and my approach to using them is based on a reasoned interpretation. I don’t fault others for having their own approach and would appreciate if you would be specific about where you think I have departed from this so-called baseline rather than making vague assertions to that effect.

Back to the topic of the thread, the rule I cited up thread is that “Group checks don't come up very often, and they're most useful when all the characters succeed or fail as a group.” For me, that forms the baseline that group checks are rare, so if you’re calling for one every time the party uses stealth, you’ve probably departed from that baseline. Before I call for a group check, I ask if the task in question entails that the party succeeds or fails as a group. It’s not a rule, but it’s the guidance given for best use of group checks, and I have to yet to see an actual example given in this thread where the success of a group’s attempt at being stealthy is not dependent on each individual member of the group succeeding at being stealthy. You yourself have said you use a house rule where you call for a group check whenever the party uses teamwork. If that’s working for you, then that’s great.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Like I said, I have no idea what baseline others are using and to what extent they have “changed the game” to get there. I don’t think we need to dismiss one another’s approaches to running the game as “house rules” as if some other approach has a more legitimate claim to orthodoxy. The rules I have referenced are officially published, and my approach to using them is based on a reasoned interpretation. I don’t fault others for having their own approach and would appreciate if you would be specific about where you think I have departed from this so-called baseline rather than making vague assertions to that effect.

The baseline is the rules as given in the book. Is this a controversial take?

As far as where you diverged, there's nothing in the rules about sight distance for encounters or audio distance, for starters. I had to play 20 questions to get that much. I'm still not sure how much more machinery you have this aspect of the game. Can you have these rules? 100% you can, and good for you. But, I shouldn't have to dig out that you're doing extra stuff when discussion a topic that has that stuff as part of the basis for your answer. I have no idea how you run your game at your table, or what extra stuff you use either made up by your table or ported in from other games or editions. I can't know. So it's not on me to guess, it's on you to provide when it's relevant.

Back to the topic of the thread, the rule I cited up thread is that “Group checks don't come up very often, and they're most useful when all the characters succeed or fail as a group.” For me, that forms the baseline that group checks are rare, so if you’re calling for one every time the party uses stealth, you’ve probably departed from that baseline. Before I call for a group check, I ask if the task in question entails that the party succeeds or fails as a group. It’s not a rule, but it’s the guidance given for best use of group checks, and I have to yet to see an actual example given in this thread where the success of a group’s attempt at being stealthy is not dependent on each individual member of the group succeeding at being stealthy. You yourself have said you use a house rule where you call for a group check whenever the party uses teamwork. If that’s working for you, then that’s great.

That's not the rule. That was one person's take on it, but it's nowhere in the rule. Are you actually aware of what 5e says with regard to group rolls, or are you guess based on what people on the internet say when talking about it? As for your strawman that I might be the kind of person that always uses group checks, I've already put that one to bed, let's not re-erect it to have another go at it's stuffing.

As for a successful check, yes, every character that participated in a successful group check succeeded at the task. They did so by having teammates use teamwork to help them through when they might otherwise have struggled or failed on their own. A group check success means the group succeeded. The mechanic of the rolls in this case isn't check individual performance, but whether they contributed to the success of the group.

 

[Hriston]

The baseline is the rules as given in the book. Is this a controversial take?

As far as where you diverged, there's nothing in the rules about sight distance for encounters or audio distance, for starters. I had to play 20 questions to get that much. I'm still not sure how much more machinery you have this aspect of the game. Can you have these rules? 100% you can, and good for you. But, I shouldn't have to dig out that you're doing extra stuff when discussion a topic that has that stuff as part of the basis for your answer. I have no idea how you run your game at your table, or what extra stuff you use either made up by your table or ported in from other games or editions. I can't know. So it's not on me to guess, it's on you to provide when it's relevant.

That's not the rule. That was one person's take on it, but it's nowhere in the rule. Are you actually aware of what 5e says with regard to group rolls, or are you guess based on what people on the internet say when talking about it? As for your strawman that I might be the kind of person that always uses group checks, I've already put that one to bed, let's not re-erect it to have another go at it's stuffing.

As for a successful check, yes, every character that participated in a successful group check succeeded at the task. They did so by having teammates use teamwork to help them through when they might otherwise have struggled or failed on their own. A group check success means the group succeeded. The mechanic of the rolls in this case isn't check individual performance, but whether they contributed to the success of the group.

The sighting and audible distances I use are from the official DM’s screen for 5th Edition. If I had thought it was relevant, I would have volunteered the information, but I didn’t think it was. Since you asked about it, I was happy to discuss.

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that I’m quoting someone on the Internet. That’s a direct quote from the rules from the section on group checks. It says “they’re most useful when all the characters succeed or fail as a group.” Whether that’s the case can only be determined by consulting the fiction, in my opinion. You seem to think that it’s the case because you’re using a group check, but to me that logic seems circular.

I didn’t mean to imply you, personally, always use group checks. I was using the general you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The sighting and audible distances I use are from the official DM’s screen for 5th Edition. If I had thought it was relevant, I would have volunteered the information, but I didn’t think it was. Since you asked about it, I was happy to discuss.

The official DM's screen includes information not in any of the rulebooks? Well, that's an interesting tidbit.

ETA: I guess it is understandable that seeing something on the DM's screen would seem to indicate it's part of the core set of rules. This is point of bad design, in my opinion.

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that I’m quoting someone on the Internet. That’s a direct quote from the rules from the section on group checks. It says “they’re most useful when all the characters succeed or fail as a group.” Whether that’s the case can only be determined by consulting the fiction, in my opinion. You seem to think that it’s the case because you’re using a group check, but to me that logic seems circular.

That's not the quote you used before.

I didn’t mean to imply you, personally, always use group checks. I was using the general you.

So, then, a general strawman? It's still a fairly silly argument.

 

[Hriston]

The official DM's screen includes information not in any of the rulebooks? Well, that's an interesting tidbit.

ETA: I guess it is understandable that seeing something on the DM's screen would seem to indicate it's part of the core set of rules. This is point of bad design, in my opinion.

That's not the quote you used before.

So, then, a general strawman? It's still a fairly silly argument.

I think the story I heard was that it was edited out of the books to save space but left on the DM’s screen. I wouldn’t make the argument that it’s a core part of the rule set but rather tools I can use to fulfill my role as DM in describing the environment and, in the case of combat, determining surprise and establishing positions, things that might otherwise be based on DM prep which I try to keep as light as possible.

I’ve posted that quote three times in this thread. The second time I included the opening clause of the sentence, i.e. “Group checks don’t come up very often...”, because I felt it was relevant to the point I was making which was that a party moving stealthily, the situation presented in the OP, would seem to occur too frequently to qualify. At least it does in my games.

 

[NotAYakk]

2 is not at least half of 5.

If you want group checks to be less of a gimmie, give a -1 penalty for each member of the group.

It is still well worth it to bring low skill PCs along in a stealth situation.

What more, you can simply allow the median value to be used for everyone under the median. Those above use their own rolls (with the -1 penalty per person in the group check).

As a bonus, it makes small (5ish) group checks more viable than 10-30 sized group checks.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think the story I heard was that it was edited out of the books to save space but left on the DM’s screen. I wouldn’t make the argument that it’s a core part of the rule set but rather tools I can use to fulfill my role as DM in describing the environment and, in the case of combat, determining surprise and establishing positions, things that might otherwise be based on DM prep which I try to keep as light as possible.

I’ve posted that quote three times in this thread. The second time I included the opening clause of the sentence, i.e. “Group checks don’t come up very often...”, because I felt it was relevant to the point I was making which was that a party moving stealthily, the situation presented in the OP, would seem to occur too frequently to qualify. At least it does in my games.

If you're going to add to a quote, and then get called on the add, pointing out that you might (I'm not going to check on this) have said the rest of it before doesn't deflect the criticism of the addition you made. This is odd, it's like if there was a quote that mages cast spells, but I added "rarely" to the quote such that mages rarely cast spells, that I could defend my claim here merely because I said "mages cast spells" a few times before the "rarely" version.

 

[jgsugden]

In any situation involving stealth, there are approximately 1,000,000,000 factors to be balanced when determining the best way to proceed, and players know about 100,000 of them. As such, the idea that there is a right way to handle stealth is a bit of a loser. In any situation involving stealth, I remind the PCs of the following things:

• Unless you've made a roll to hide and you are not completely motionless and silent, your location is obvious, even if you can't be seen. This is true whether you're invisible, in fog, or behind cover.
• If you're hidden, you need to beat the passive perception of potential observers to stay hidden. You also can't do anything to end the hidden state, obviously.
• I apply a penalty (or bonus) to perception based upon distance, cover, concealment, etc... as well as based upon the nature of your appearance and the nature of sounds you might potentially be making.
• If a person is not using their action or bonus action to do something, they also get to use a perception check to try to detect you when you're hidden.

As for group checks - I do not generally use them for 'detailed stealth work', but instead apply them to things where the group is workingf together to achieve a single cumulative goal, where each PC's continyribution can add towards the solution, but generally an individual failure will not detract. As such, it does not apply to stealth.

All of this plays out with the PCs all rolling stealth, and me determining when they'll be detected (if they will) based upon when that penalty due to distance drops enough that the passive perception / active perception is enough to find the PC.

HOWEVER, it has been a good long time since PCs went into a situation where they needed group stealth and did not have poassiwthout trace up. In many groups, once 3rd or 5th level is hit, they can set it up so that is is unreasonable for the PCs to get less than a 15 stealth, and that is usually enough to get past the vast majority of passive stealth scores.