D&D (2024) Group Checks?

[Crimson Longinus]

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

I am not, but you might be.

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.

Not true. Cover or obscurement is a requirement for taking the hide action to make you invisible, it is not a requirement for remaining so.

My game works. Yours does not it seems.

My game works for the same reason yours seem to: not actually using the rules that are written in the book.

 

[Baumi]

I think the DMG has exactly the wrong reasons for Group Checks (which I usually really like).

It should be a tool to make some group attempts interesting instead (near-)automatic misses or successes. It's not only tied to stealth, but also to knowledge or perception checks, where a singe success mean success for all .. so there is no reason to even roll if you have a normal or large group, even if no one is trained in such things.

I always see group-checks as someone good is helping someone who is bad at the task. Like letting the best at sneaking in the front and everyone is following silently in his footsteps, or testing the group-knowledge of Arcana, climing a mountain together where the best Athlete is moving forward securing the rope..

This makes for good group activities that bond the heroes together instead of leaving most behind (sneaking) or everyone needlessly chiming in because a single good roll is needed (knowledge). It might not be the most realistical rule, but one that helps with some skill-related problems that plague rpg's since forever.

P.S.: A good alternative rule to group checks is to give the leading (usually the most skilled) charakter Advantage or Disadvantage depending if a group hinders or help the Action. That migates the pure luck factor of the D20-Die.

 

[Retros_x]

Seems like a superb way to keep a party from trying stealthy approaches.

Or a superb way for the paladin to actually undon his plate and don't rely on rogues averaging it out. Or a superb way for stealthy characters to do some actual scouting.

I think more old-school gameplay prefers this, while modern groups might prefer group checks. Its a matter of gamestyle.

Not true. Cover or obscurement is a requirement for taking the hide action to make you invisible, it is not a requirement for remaining so.

My game works for the same reason yours seem to: not actually using the rules that are written in the book.

I have not read the full discussion, so I might be missing something but in 2014 the moment someone sees you you are not hidden anymore. So if you hide sucessfully behind cover and than leave the cover to walk through line of sight you are seen. Which also makes sense. In 2024 the wording makes this more confusing, but "an enemy finds you" is for me that. You have the invisible condition, but you are not actually invisible. It doesnt make sense you are hidden even if you leave cover and go towards the enemy who looks in your direction with nothing to block or obscure line of sight.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am not, but you might be.

No.

Not true. Cover or obscurement is a requirement for taking the hide action to make you invisible, it is not a requirement for remaining so.

Not true. The rules don't state you can remain unfound if you are doing stupid things (like behaving as if you are translucent).

My game works for the same reason yours seem to: not actually using the rules that are written in the book.

I use the rules that are actually written in the book. I am just not trying to fill things the rules don't explicitely mention with nonsensical stuff.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not true. The rules don't state you can remain unfound if you are doing stupid things.

Sure. But you cannot find invisible things by sight. Or if you can, invisibility spell does nothing. Which actually might be the case, as invisibility condition doesn't actually say you cannot perceived by normal sight, just that it's benefits do not work if you're "somehow seen," which if, we are strict, is what everyone can do just fine as the rules neglected to say that they can't. But if we are sensible and assume that RAI is that invisibility makes things invisible, then that applies to one gained from hiding as well.

 

[ezo]

I think the DMG has exactly the wrong reasons for Group Checks (which I usually really like).

It should be a tool to make some group attempts interesting instead (near-)automatic misses or successes. It's not only tied to stealth, but also to knowledge or perception checks, where a singe success mean success for all .. so there is no reason to even roll if you have a normal or large group, even if no one is trained in such things.

I always see group-checks as someone good is helping someone who is bad at the task. Like letting the best at sneaking in the front and everyone is following silently in his footsteps, or testing the group-knowledge of Arcana, climing a mountain together where the best Athlete is moving forward securing the rope..

This makes for good group activities that bond the heroes together instead of leaving most behind (sneaking) or everyone needlessly chiming in because a single good roll is needed (knowledge). It might not be the most realistical rule, but one that helps with some skill-related problems that plague rpg's since forever.

Yep, this is pretty much exactly how and when I use Group Checks.

In the upcoming session with a dragon hunting the PCs, the Rogue who is great at Stealth (+11) and Perception (+10) can most certainly "help" the other two PCs find a good place to hide, etc. before the dragon is in their area.

As a group check, just one of the two have to make the contested roll (assuming the Rogue makes his!) for the check to be successful. There is even an outside chance those two could make their rolls and the Rogue fail (he was too focused on helping the others), but that would still lead to success for the check.

If I make it all or nothing, each individual check, the odds are insanely against the PCs (less than 1 in 100!) since a single failure would indicate discovery.

 

[Plaguescarred]

To me Group Check is a tool to measure any task's success or failure collectively rather than individually.

Not using them if a single failure has consequence is missing the goal, if i use Group check, it's especially to have an outcome despite single success or failure since it's measured more globally as a group togheter.

I generally use them to see how The Party fare in general in a given situation where it's possible to help each other perform and or cover mistakes.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

It should be a tool to make some group attempts interesting instead (near-)automatic misses or successes. It's not only tied to stealth, but also to knowledge or perception checks, where a singe success mean success for all .. so there is no reason to even roll if you have a normal or large group, even if no one is trained in such things.

Exactly. Group checks as written in 2014 were one of the better designed features of the edition. Not only are group checks now relegated to a random page in the new DMG, but they're redesigned to strip away their entire purpose.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

Other system stuff being redesigned/removed while I'm at it:

The new edition removed the rules for contested rolls and improvising contests. Terrible decision.

 

[ezo]

Other system stuff being redesigned/removed while I'm at it:

The new edition removed the rules for contested rolls and improvising contests. Terrible decision.

Did they? LOL that is horrible!