D&D (2024) Group Checks?

[Crimson Longinus]

I think you can figure that out. I assume you are willully misinterpreting the rules at this point.

I am not. Stealth grants invisibility condition, same as invisibility spell. So either stealth makes you imperceptible by sight, or the invisibility spell doesn't. That the rules, take your pick.

Ok. Maybe I assumed wrong.

Seems I am just better at figuring out what the rules mean. Because they do work well for me.

They might. But you're probably not actually following them.

 

[prabe]

Not sure when group checks come in now. Just when failure has no consequences?

Pretty sure it's when no single failure would have consequences.

 

[Voadam]

Pretty sure it's when no single failure would have consequences.

Is there an example of such a situation?

I thought the game generally advised to only call for checks when there is a consequence to failure.

 

[prabe]

Is there an example of such a situation?

I thought the game generally advised to only call for checks when there is a consequence to failure.

If you're calling for a group check, presumably the group can fail overall, and there's consequence for that.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I am not. Stealth grants invisibility condition, same as invisibility spell. So either stealth makes you imperceptible by sight, or the invisibility spell doesn't. That the rules, take your pick.

Even going back to AD&D 1e, Invisibility does not make you silent. You still make noise - so you are still able to alert someone that they need to start searching. 1e even specifically notes that they are not silenced.

Even looking back to 2e, the Invisibility spell had rules specifically for people being able to detect someone under the spell.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Is there an example of such a situation?

I thought the game generally advised to only call for checks when there is a consequence to failure.

I would say the most common example of a group check where one person failing doesn't automatically make everyone fail would be foraging and surviving in the wilderness. One person screwing up Survival doesn't mean they all starve - one person can make the check and find X pounds of food.

Stealth, I would assume, is the opposite where one person's misstep or heavy armor could alert guards. Again, there are ways to better your odds - take off your armor, for example, and don it again once you've passed.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Stealth, I would assume, is the opposite where one person's misstep or heavy armor could alert guards. Again, there are ways to better your odds - take off your armor, for example, and don it again once you've passed.

Thus reinstating the “never try stealth if anyone uses heavy armor” rule.

Remember, if you play with a paladin, stealth is not an option.

 

[Voadam]

I would say the most common example of a group check where one person failing doesn't automatically make everyone fail would be foraging and surviving in the wilderness. One person screwing up Survival doesn't mean they all starve - one person can make the check and find X pounds of food.

But would that be a group check situation at all? That would just be individual checks to get X food per success and no food per failure on each individual check, not a group boar hunt activity where you would get one group success or failure.

Part of the point of the group check mechanics it seems to me is that too much poor performance can scuttle a group project just as enough good performance can cover some individual poor performance in a group activity. Like in a boar hunt enough people making noise could mean someone who is a Kraven the Hunter doing everything right still does not get their shot because the animal runs off at the noise of the others, or in contrast the professional guide hunters tell the inexperienced client when to be quiet and where to go so that they do not spook the animals and do get the shot they would not otherwise get.

 

[Distracted DM]

Even going back to AD&D 1e, Invisibility does not make you silent. You still make noise - so you are still able to alert someone that they need to start searching. 1e even specifically notes that they are not silenced.

Even looking back to 2e, the Invisibility spell had rules specifically for people being able to detect someone under the spell.

I don't think @Crimson Longinus mentioned sound though- the Invisible condition doesn't really differentiate with sound iirc. Mechanically yes, hiding and the Invisibility spell both give you the Invisible condition. It does matter a little how you get there- hiding requires you to unseen first via cover/obscurement. If you make a sound louder than a whisper (this seems to largely be up to the player), an enemy finds you (via searching for you), you attack, or Verbal cast. Whereas the Invisibility spell doesn't have those riders to achieve the Invisible condition.

Spoiler

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am not. Stealth grants invisibility condition, same as invisibility spell. So either stealth makes you imperceptible by sight, or the invisibility spell doesn't. That the rules, take your pick.

Missing the conditions that end the invisibility from stealth.
You are confusing the condition with the hide action.

Same with the grappled condition. It never states how it ends. The ending condition is in the unarmed strike rules.

Conditions usually don't state when they end. They are game terms.

When does invisibility from the spell end? When the spell ends (concentration lost/dispell magic). Looking at you does not end it. Even pinpointing your location (by sound or tremorsense) does not end it.

When does the invisible condition from stealth end? When you make sounds, when someone looks at you whipe you don't have cover or obscurement. If you do something that obviously allows enemies to find you.

They might. But you're probably not actually following them.

My game works. Yours does not it seems.

Stealth rules before 5e were revised over and over again. Because no matter how much one tries, they are still expoitable and will crumble in edge case.
I guess 2024 revised the stealth rules, because the distinction between hidden and invisible proved to be not worth the effort and confusing for a lot of people.