Darkvision Ruins Dungeon-Crawling

[GMMichael]

I wish we could be satisfied with stating an opinion, such as about how the Help action works, without making it a debate. Debates belong in their own threads. Once you have said "I think X" in a thread not devoted to debate, there is not much point in saying it again, especially if you are repeating yourself. As it is we get pages of posts not dealing with the issue at hand, essentially white noise.

"I see friends shaking hands, sayin' 'how do you do?' They're really saying, 'I love you.'"

50.3% yea
41.7% nay

I should have recorded the earlier results. It would be interesting if Undecideds were swayed by one page or another . . . but I doubt any of the poll responses changed

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wish we could be satisfied with stating an opinion, such as about how the Help action works, without making it a debate. Debates belong in their own threads. Once you have said "I think X" in a thread not devoted to debate, there is not much point in saying it again, especially if you are repeating yourself. As it is we get pages of posts not dealing with the issue at hand, essentially white noise.

Well, there's always someone who takes issue with a stated opinion, which encourages the holder of said opinion to respond explaining and/or defending it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Isn't there some rule about all threads devolving into Alignment arguments if they go on long enough?

i thought it was they all devolved into martial vs caster debates?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Great post. Bold added.

I agree that people team up to search for things all the time, but realistically, that's actually by increasing the number of people looking.

I think your observation about the absurd conclusion sums up folks' incredulity well.

The problem is that using that approach overstates the benefit of having multiples, especially with a linear die roll system. Failure becomes not only reduced, it rapidly approaches nil if the chance for one person to detect something was at all significant.

Its the same reason multiple-stealth becomes downright stupid awfully quickly.

 

[Mannahnin]

The problem is that using that approach overstates the benefit of having multiples, especially with a linear die roll system. Failure becomes not only reduced, it rapidly approaches nil if the chance for one person to detect something was at all significant.

Its the same reason multiple-stealth becomes downright stupid awfully quickly.

Yes, I agree that this is an issue.

 

[GMMichael]

i thought it was they all devolved into martial vs caster debates?

That's one of the other quantum outcomes. When you try to pin its location, you lose certainty.

Its the same reason multiple-stealth becomes downright stupid awfully quickly.

It's one reason. Another reason is that larger groups are harder to hide.

 

[BrokenTwin]

When it comes to challenges where the party succeeds or fails as a group (like stealth, climbing, etc) I generally prefer either group success rules (as long as half of the group succeeds the whole group succeeds) or crit/raise rules (where hitting a certain amount above a success allows you to boost an ally's roll or outright negate a failure).

 

[Bill Zebub]

When it comes to challenges where the party succeeds or fails as a group (like stealth, climbing, etc) I generally prefer either group success rules (as long as half of the group succeeds the whole group succeeds) or crit/raise rules (where hitting a certain amount above a success allows you to boost an ally's roll or outright negate a failure).

I sometimes have no idea what the group success method (50%+) means narratively, but I agree it seems to work at the table in those situations.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's one reason. Another reason is that larger groups are harder to hide.

While they should be, it shouldn't be nearly impossible to make work with four characters with at least competent stealth skills, but making separate rolls for them can make that so.

 

[Mannahnin]

It's one reason. Another reason is that larger groups are harder to hide.

I sometimes have no idea what the group success method (50%+) means narratively, but I agree it seems to work at the table in those situations.

While they should be, it shouldn't be nearly impossible to make work with four characters with at least competent stealth skills, but making separate rolls for them can make that so.

Right. The way the math works out makes it disproportionately likely that someone will flub it, even if they're all skilled.

If I'm running my anydice calculation right, it appears that if you have four PCs with a +5 bonus (say, 16 dex and +2 prof at first level), the odds that at least one of them will roll a 9 or less and fail to successfully Stealth is over 90%. Make that a group of 5 and it's almost 95%. So with a party of five, even if ALL of them are good at Stealth, it's about a 1/20 shot that no one will blow it.

Group checks (50%+) are just a simple mechanical kludge to offset the broken math.