Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Asymmetrical stealth
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7334913" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>By RAW, you should make a group check for the sneaking creatures - each individual member of the group makes the check, and if half or more succeed, the group succeeds, if more than half fail, the group fails. If the whole group has identical stat blocks, it’s not unreasonable to handle it with one check for all of them, but you’re correct that this method does favor groups of monsters over groups of PCs. Personally, I’m not a fan of the RAW for group checks. If a group of characters is searching for something, you don’t need half of the group to find it - as soon as one person finds it, it’s found. Likewise, if you’re trying to sneak through a dungeon as a group, it doesn’t take half the group being spotted for the group’s position to be given away - that one Paladin clanking around in their armor will ruin it for everyone else if they’re not careful. That’s why you send scouts. Besides that, I don’t like doing with 4-6 rolls what could be done with one, same reason you would want to consolidate the monsters’ group check into one roll. So here’s how I do it:</p><p></p><p><strong>Group Checks.</strong></p><p>When several PCs are trying to accomplish something as a group, the GM can call for a group check. First, the GM determines whether the group will succeed if any member succeeds (such as with searching) or if the group will fail if any member fails (such as with stealth). In the first scenario, the group rolls a single check using the highest ability check modifier and proficiency bonus available to any single character. If any member of the group would have advantage on the check, the check is made with advantage. If any member of the group is benefiting from any bonuses that would apply to the check, the best single one of those bonuses is also applied to the check. In the second scenario, the group rolls a single check using the lowest ability check modifier and proficiency bonus available to any single character. If any member of the group would have disadvantage on the check, the check is made with disadvantage. If any member of the group is suffering from any penalties that would affect the check, the single worst one of those penalties is also applied to the check.</p><p></p><p>EDIT: Credit where it’s due, this group check rule is not my invention, but that of the Angry GM. Reference to the article here: <a href="http://theangrygm.com/exploration-rules/" target="_blank">http://theangrygm.com/exploration-rules/</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7334913, member: 6779196"] By RAW, you should make a group check for the sneaking creatures - each individual member of the group makes the check, and if half or more succeed, the group succeeds, if more than half fail, the group fails. If the whole group has identical stat blocks, it’s not unreasonable to handle it with one check for all of them, but you’re correct that this method does favor groups of monsters over groups of PCs. Personally, I’m not a fan of the RAW for group checks. If a group of characters is searching for something, you don’t need half of the group to find it - as soon as one person finds it, it’s found. Likewise, if you’re trying to sneak through a dungeon as a group, it doesn’t take half the group being spotted for the group’s position to be given away - that one Paladin clanking around in their armor will ruin it for everyone else if they’re not careful. That’s why you send scouts. Besides that, I don’t like doing with 4-6 rolls what could be done with one, same reason you would want to consolidate the monsters’ group check into one roll. So here’s how I do it: [B]Group Checks.[/B] When several PCs are trying to accomplish something as a group, the GM can call for a group check. First, the GM determines whether the group will succeed if any member succeeds (such as with searching) or if the group will fail if any member fails (such as with stealth). In the first scenario, the group rolls a single check using the highest ability check modifier and proficiency bonus available to any single character. If any member of the group would have advantage on the check, the check is made with advantage. If any member of the group is benefiting from any bonuses that would apply to the check, the best single one of those bonuses is also applied to the check. In the second scenario, the group rolls a single check using the lowest ability check modifier and proficiency bonus available to any single character. If any member of the group would have disadvantage on the check, the check is made with disadvantage. If any member of the group is suffering from any penalties that would affect the check, the single worst one of those penalties is also applied to the check. EDIT: Credit where it’s due, this group check rule is not my invention, but that of the Angry GM. Reference to the article here: [URL]http://theangrygm.com/exploration-rules/[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Asymmetrical stealth
Top