D&D 5E (2014) Group skill checks

[Guest 7030100]

But the proper way to run a group stealth check, of course, is to shove the paladin down some stairs and cause a loud distraction, thus granting advantage to all others in the group.
Teamwork!

 

[aco175]

I tend to go back and forth with group checks. It partly makes sense for a navigation check or navigating a boat across the river. It makes some sense when searching a room or climbing cliffs using ropes. I'm sure it makes no sense in certain situations like picking a pocket or concentration.

I might go with some sort of group check that succeeds with penalties. If the whole group is sneaking and 3/5 make the check, then good you succeed. 2/5 makes the check- then maybe you just waste time or someone spots you but you have time and maybe another encounter just became harder. 1/5 makes the check and you get noticed. Maybe there is an alarm or just guards charge you. I guess there is not a lot of success when you are seen and attacked, but some of you get the idea.

Sort of like the DC is 15 to succeed. Failure by 5 or less and you cannot progress, but do not fail yet. This comes into play with something like climbing a wall and you get halfway before you need another check.

 

[Hriston]

I wouldn't use group checks to determine surprise. Group checks for Stealth would be more along the lines of getting past some guards in an exploration challenge. If we get into a combat challenge, then the DM determines surprise by the normal process.

Hmm, I’m not sure what that looks like. Say the group doesn’t pass its check to get past, and the guards attack. Would you then allow those who would have passed individually to remain unnoticed/attack from hiding?

 

[Charlaquin]

A party of five stealth experts, all who only need a 6+ to succeed, will only have a 24% chance of them all passing.

No, sorry, that's not the heroic game I want to play, especially if the group focused on all making steathy characters. That's just a lousy experience.

Yeah, the d20 is just too fickle for that method to work.

 

[iserith]

Hmm, I’m not sure what that looks like. Say the group doesn’t pass its check to get past, and the guards attack. Would you then allow those who would have passed individually to remain unnoticed/attack from hiding?

Yep, that seems like the easiest way to me, if it makes sense in the fictional context. Plus if it's a mixed group of monsters, some might be surprised and others not (depending on how the rolls went vs. the various PPs).

 

[GMMichael]

Stealth is the place the group check is needed most for the flow of the game and the broadening of potential adventures/situations without having to resort to split parties and players sitting out of the action for too long.

I'm not averse to split parties, but yes, sitting out isn't much fun. Still, if I'm the party's stealth specialist, I fully expect to sneak somewhere by myself, because the noisy paladin, clanking around, could get me an arrow in the knee. Or worse.

The presumption isn't that someone is "failing" in any specific way as much as the group as a whole sinks or swims based on a shared task. It could mean that the ones with the successful rolls are helping the ones who aren't rolling so well. Maybe helping them time their movements to avoid the patrol passing by the side corridor, catching the goblet the one with the poor roll almost knocked from the table, grabbing the scabbard just before it scrapes against the wall and gives the group away.

To me, it's way more fun to play out, and maybe even make some rolls for, these separate actions you describe here. If the detail doesn't matter, and the DM wants to breeze over it, then it doesn't really call for a check, either.

If the point is just to solve an issue that the DM is on the fence about, sure, call for some checks and wave the party through if half of them beat it. I usually speed that up by asking the first available player to roll a d10, and things go well if the player rolls higher than the party's percentage chance of getting into trouble.

 

[Hriston]

A party of five stealth experts, all who only need a 6+ to succeed, will only have a 24% chance of them all passing.

No, sorry, that's not the heroic game I want to play, especially if the group focused on all making steathy characters. That's just a lousy experience.

I think it’s reasonable that chances of total party success would decrease the more members of the party there are. Apparently you find this amount of decrease unreasonable/un-fun.

What I find unreasonable is for two characters to have a 94% chance of remaining unnoticed when each of them on their own only has a 75% chance. This runs counter to what I would expect, not to mention genre considerations about stealthy characters operating solo. What explanation is there for their chances being so much better?

 

[iserith]

I think it’s reasonable that chances of total party success would decrease the more members of the party there are. Apparently you find this amount of decrease unreasonable/un-fun.

What I find unreasonable is for two characters to have a 94% chance of remaining unnoticed when each of them on their own only has a 75% chance. This runs counter to what I would expect, not to mention genre considerations about stealthy characters operating solo. What explanation is there for their chances being so much better?

 

[Hriston]

Yep, that seems like the easiest way to me, if it makes sense in the fictional context. Plus if it's a mixed group of monsters, some might be surprised and others not (depending on how the rolls went vs. the various PPs).

Yeah, that makes sense. Personally, when calling for a group check I abide by the group succeeding or failing as a group, which in this case would mean that either they are all noticed or they all remain unnoticed. As I said though, I wouldn’t call for a group check to resolve such an attempt due to the possibility of some individuals being noticed while others are not.

 

[iserith]

Yeah, that makes sense. Personally, when calling for a group check I abide by the group succeeding or failing as a group, which in this case would mean that either they are all noticed or they all remain unnoticed. As I said though, I wouldn’t call for a group check to resolve such an attempt due to the possibility of some individuals being noticed while others are not.

I think it's better to use group Stealth checks only when the outcome is something other than battle. A failed check might mean, for example, that the PCs' presence is noticed after they sneak past the guards - tracks were left behind or a dog picks up on their scent, or whatever. Perhaps the next part of the challenge becomes harder as a result. This keeps it in the realm of an exploration challenge instead of complicating matters with surprise rules in a combat challenge.