D&D (2024) Group Checks?

[UngeheuerLich]

The funny thing is that using group checks to help with party Stealth was the example the designers gave when they were talking about group checks way back in the 2014 play test. So 2024 is completely altering the intent.

But that isn't the only place. Sometime someone should make a list of all the design goals/intents from 2014 that have been changed or reversed in 2024. I expect many people didn't notice, but whether you like or want to use them or not, it can have an effect on how your game plays, DM versus player expectations, etc.

Indeed some changes are there. When reading Mike Mearls articles you clearly see how important he was in 5e design.

On the other hand, monsters will also change. So we still don't see the full picture.
If monster's perception scores are even lower now, maybe sneaking is still possible.
Then sneaking allows you to benefit from the invisble condition which gives advantage on initative on top of everything else (except for making you actually invisble...). So you should check individually who starts combat woth that advantage. You could still do group stealth checks to determine general noise the party makes which determines encounter distance or so.

 

[Voadam]

I am now imagining the invisibility spell making you unseen but not transparent.

For example an illusory mobile smoke cloud that you can see through prevents others from seeing you.

Emitting shining light that is too glaring to look at.

Nausea emitting patterns that get logarithmically worse the closer you come to looking at the subject.

The psionic invisibility of people just not registering you, inducing a mental blindspot.

 

[Ashrym]

Maybe because the character built for heavy armor (probably) has crap for dex and no proficiency, so they're sacrificing survivability for no appreciable increase in their odds of success.

The difference between disadvantage on the check and no disadvantage on the check is considerable.

Scouting is one thing, but evenin light armor (assuming you don’t track encumbrance because carrying an extra set of armor adds up) you still need to beat a DC 15 with a +0 mod, probably more than once, or get into a fight at 6 less AC (which will likely nearly double the odds of getting hit) - and that assumes you have 5 min to change to sneaky armor and ten minutes to change back after.

Enhance Ability is a low level spell that's very easy for a cleric, druid, or ranger to swap in; or artificer. It's almost as easy for a wizard but does have to be in the spellbook. It's also available to arcane tricksters, bards, eldritch knights, and sorcerers.

Pass Without Trace is a low level spell that's very easy to swap in for druids and rangers.

Since the premise is a team stealth mission then the team usually has options to help the skillfully challenged.

Again: leave your plate at home is a -8 to AC, ie going from an 18 to a ten, which at low levels means enemies will hit you twice as often. It’s not annoying; it’s crippling as being on the frontline is now just asking to get dropped.

Put on a shield and breast plate. It's not an all-or-nothing scenario.

 

[Ashrym]

Does see invisibility work the same in 24 or has it been updated to accommodate the change in the invisibility condition?

SEE INVISIBILITY
2nd-level divination
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (a pinch of talc and a small sprinkling of powdered silver)
Duration: 1 hour
For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures and objects appear ghostly and translucent.

In 14 it would not see hidden creatures, in 24 this writing seems like it would.

This is the 2024 text:

See Invisibility

Level 2 Divination (Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard)

Casting Time: Action

Range: Self

Components: V, S, M (a pinch of talc)

Duration: 1 hour

For the duration, you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Creatures and objects there appear ghostly.

 

[Voadam]

For the duration, you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Creatures and objects there appear ghostly.

Thanks.

So it reveals mundanely hidden creatures as if they were visible now and not just actually invisible things.

 

[prabe]

The difference between disadvantage on the check and no disadvantage on the check is considerable.

That'll depend on what they're trying to sneak past, and when you have someone with a -1 on their Dex and no Proficiency, their odds of success start at crap and go downhill from there, IME. And it's not as though making it a group check guarantees success--I've had parties fail those. It's just that making any failure cause the group to fail seems to guarantee failure. Obviously, whatever the people at a given table want to do is fine for them.

 

[prabe]

Thanks.

So it reveals mundanely hidden creatures as if they were visible now and not just actually invisible things.

That's a kinda crap change, but it would at least seem to require you to have a line of sight to the hidden creature.

 

[Ashrym]

That'll depend on what they're trying to sneak past, and when you have someone with a -1 on their Dex and no Proficiency, their odds of success start at crap and go downhill from there, IME. And it's not as though making it a group check guarantees success--I've had parties fail those. It's just that making any failure cause the group to fail seems to guarantee failure. Obviously, whatever the people at a given table want to do is fine for them.

How does it go downhill from there when your scenario of -1 to the check and starting in heavy armor was the bottom of the hill to start?

I pointed out that removing the armor increased the chance of success for that character. 75% chance to fail a DC 15 check becomes 94% chance to fail with disadvantage. Taking off the armor might still have a solid chance to fail but it's still considerably better and more likely to succeed.

More than half the classes have access to Enhance Ability and there are other sources of advantage. Advantage changes that 75% chance to fail down to 56% chance to fail. That's much better than 94% chance to fail the check.

They can obviously still fail the check but this is true for other characters too. The only difference is the likelihood of that failure.

A character with a +3 bonus from either proficiency or DEX still fails DC 15 55% of the time. A character with +6 bonus fails DC 15 40% of the time.

By taking off the armor and giving the weaker link regarding advantage that weaker link has a similar chance to many characters, and a better chance than most who don't take stealth proficiency.

If the character or party wants to be better at stealth that requires more focus, but it's not hard to bring that -1 character in heavy armor up to the rest of the typical party. It only take changing armor and an easily available buff.

 

[Charlaquin]

The condition does state though that you are concealed, which means you cant be affected by any effects that requires its target to be seen - unless the effects creator can somehow see you.

Right, but the invisibility spell does not specify that other creatures can’t see you with normal vision while under its effects, and the hide action doesn’t specify that they can. We can assume one way or the other, but either way breaks how one of these sources of invisibility should intuitively work if applied consistently.

Because the hiding action has this additional requirement, I argue that this requirement is what triggers the "unless the creator of an effect or attack can somehow see you".

That’s a requirement for taking the Hide action. The rules for the action don’t say the condition ends if you leave cover or obscuration. They should, but that’s not actually written in the text.

But when you have the condition from the spell, you can't be targeted by effects that needs you to be seen. Unless someone has blind sight or smth. similar.

The spell doesn’t actually say that though. We can infer that’s the case, since the spell would be useless otherwise. But if we apply that assumed function consistently, then the hide action must also work that way, because it doesn’t specify otherwise.

 

[Charlaquin]

As I already mentioned: stating that you are translucent in the spell description had helped.
Also a reminder that you need to try and stay unfound for you to stay invisible would not have been wasted words. Or a DM determines if someone notices you at the end of your turn of you are not concealed or behind cover.

I do reject your assessment that it is RAW that the hide action and the invisibility spell works similar. They have different conditions when the invisible condition ends. The spell does not say that you stop benefitting from the invisible condition* anymore when you are found.

When it ends isn’t at issue. We agree that the invisible condition from the hide action ends more easily than the condition from the invisibility spell does. The question is what the condition actually does while you have it. Since neither source of the condition specifies additional caveats to what the condition does (the spell doesn’t say you become translucent and the action doesn’t say you remain opaque) we must assume that your level of opacity is the same in both cases.