D&D General Blending individual checks into group checks

[Basic Expert]

Presumably, in the situation of a Strength check to open a door, the consequences of the individual forcing the first check is that the party then must decide to invest additional time and effort (collectively) to try to force it open with a group roll.

Each party member taking part in the door opening exercise wouldn't be able to keep watch for danger, search for treasure, cast spells or take any other sort of action. Whether or not that has an impact on gameplay is largely scenario dependent.

I generally don't like to gate access behind skill checks as that makes progress too arbitrary in my opinion. If I want to block access to an area I make it hidden or allow the party to discover and take specific actions to gain entry (find the key, find the magic word, etc.). However, I will use a skill roll to block access for nonessential side content or if the party is up to some shenanigans in a city and are trying to break into a shop or something.

Regardless of the framing of the use case, the presented system of folding an individual check into a group check remains a valid tool.

 

[mellored]

IMO, multiply the DC and add the results.

I.e.
DC 15, with 4 people = DC 60.
Then add up the 4 rolls.

Effectively turns it into the average, but no division.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

IMO, multiply the DC and add the results.

I.e.
DC 15, with 4 people = DC 60.
Then add up the 4 rolls.

Effectively turns it into the average, but no division.

Hmm, interesting.

 

[Li Shenron]

You didn't answer the question.

How am I supposed to know "what is the consequence of the first PC's failure?"? It could be different each time.

I told you not to focus too much on the "stuck door" example. The idea of blending into a group check is to be applied whenever the DM finds it useful.

But if you really want to focus on a stuck door... If a failure on the first try causes an immediate negative consequence (like alerting monsters who attack the party), then as I said the DM doesn't have to even think about a group check. In other cases there is no direct negative but only a missed benefit, such as not getting access to an area where they might find a shortcut, treasure, information or something else.

 

[Sorinth]

If I called for a check, it is because there is something interesting either on a failure or on a success, and I want the dice (and players decision on how to use resources to affect the dice) to determine the result.

Obviously play the game how you and your players like it, but that's not the advice of the DMG. And a big reason they called out failure but not success is precisely because if players can just repeatedly re-roll they will be successful even without spending resources making it pointless. So in those cases you can skip the rolling and just let the players do it.

And let's face it, in this example it's not even everybody can try once, the strongest character can just repeatedly try and try again until they succeed. Which frankly is something we see IRL all the time when people try to kick in a door, someone often makes multiple attempts before eventually succeeding.

 

[Li Shenron]

Obviously play the game how you and your players like it, but that's not the advice of the DMG. And a big reason they called out failure but not success is precisely because if players can just repeatedly re-roll they will be successful even without spending resources making it pointless. So in those cases you can skip the rolling and just let the players do it.

And let's face it, in this example it's not even everybody can try once, the strongest character can just repeatedly try and try again until they succeed. Which frankly is something we see IRL all the time when people try to kick in a door, someone often makes multiple attempts before eventually succeeding.

Retries are another topic, this idea is not about them.

 

[Sorinth]

Retries are another topic, this idea is not about them.

It's intrinsically linked, your making a distinction between retrying with the same character vs retrying with different characters and that's a dubious distinction even if you used a better example then kicking in a door.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's intrinsically linked, your making a distinction between retrying with the same character vs retrying with different characters and that's a dubious distinction even if you used a better example then kicking in a door.

I am not allowing retries, until the situation has changed.

I thought very briefly whether a similar idea could be applied to retries (counting previous failures and requiring a majority of successful rolls to succeed at the task) but it seemed terrible, because it would encourage the player to just keep rolling forever. But as I don't allow retries in general, I really don't care.

 

[Charlaquin]

A lot of people seem to have completely misunderstood the point of this thread. The OP is not observing a problem and trying to use group checks to fix it. If you’re thinking of everyone in the party wanting to attempt a task as a problem that needs fixing and suggesting solutions that don’t involve a group check, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

What’s actually going on here is that the OP has identified a tool that might be useful in some situations - letting multiple PCs who want to attempt the same action do so as a group check - and wants to discuss potential applications of that tool. As I suggested in my first post in this thread, I rather like this as a way to resolve knowledge-related checks, where one player asks if they know anything about a subject, and then everyone else wants to know if their character knows anything about the subject too. Even if you require characters to have a certain proficiency to contribute, there might be times when three or more characters have the proficiency in question, and a group check might be appropriate.

Another example of a case where the skill check conga line could instead be handled as a group check is when searching for something. Usually the cost or consequence associated with searching an area is time. Even assuming there is time pressure or something like random encounter rolls at regular intervals to make time a meaningful cost, once one PC commits to spending that time, there’s no reason other PCs shouldn’t join in the search as well. Maybe not all of them, since some might want to spend that time on other things like doing a ritual, or just keeping watch for danger or whatever. But sometimes you will have three or more PCs who all think the best use of that time is helping in the search, and a group check might be a good way to resolve that as well.

 

[Sorinth]

I am not allowing retries, until the situation has changed.

I thought very briefly whether a similar idea could be applied to retries (counting previous failures and requiring a majority of successful rolls to succeed at the task) but it seemed terrible, because it would encourage the player to just keep rolling forever. But as I don't allow retries in general, I really don't care.

Retrying with a different character is still retrying.