D&D 5E Group skill checks

[Blue]

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?

Reasonable loses to fun every time. This is a game, fun is a higher order objective than reasonable. There isn't room for debate about that. Now, if unreasonable is unfun for you, that's a thing - convert to unfun units and compare.

But yes, a whole party of stealth oriented characters unable to be stealthy even a quarter of the time is unfun and therefore wrong play. Yes, I'll go there.

 

[Professor Murder]

It's my experience that if I require all the party to succeed in a stealth check to employ stealth as a group, then they will never bother. When I have used this method, PC default into just walking in and fighting their way through everything.
Imagine if to win a combat encounter, all members of the party had to succeed in all actions. It would be unreasonable.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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?

Is it better to require both to succeed and have the same two characters have a 56% chance of success?

 

[CubicsRube]

I run it differently. I have everyone make a check and if one fails then it's a failure for the group.

But I use alert levels for sneaking. Generally "Oblivious > Watchful > Suspicious > Alarmed" and starting the level as appropriate for the fiction (e.g sleepy town, camping in the woods, guards at a bank, camping in enemy territory respectively).

Each failure bumps up the alert level 1, or maybe more if it's spectacularly bad. Gives players the chance to fail and not immediately go into combat all the time. And if they're creative they might be able to lower the level again.

 

[Hriston]

My chance of succeeding at remaining unnoticed is better if I’m also helping my companion be stealthy than if I just have to worry about myself because of “teamwork”? Yeah, I’m not into that level of magical thinking.

 

[Hriston]

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.

I wouldn’t rule it out, but I’d have to look at the situation on a case by case basis. Before I ask for a group check, I ask myself if this is a situation where all the characters succeed or fail as a group. Like the rules say, this doesn’t come up very often. The way I run attempts at sneaking, it’s a choice a player can make about their character’s movement for whatever play loop we’re in, the consequence of failure being that a possibly encountered creature might notice you. That failure is determined for each individual, not the group as a whole.

 

[Hriston]

Reasonable loses to fun every time. This is a game, fun is a higher order objective than reasonable. There isn't room for debate about that. Now, if unreasonable is unfun for you, that's a thing - convert to unfun units and compare.

But yes, a whole party of stealth oriented characters unable to be stealthy even a quarter of the time is unfun and therefore wrong play. Yes, I'll go there.

It’s unfun for you and therefore wrong for you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My chance of succeeding at remaining unnoticed is better if I’m also helping my companion be stealthy than if I just have to worry about myself because of “teamwork”? Yeah, I’m not into that level of magical thinking.

Yeah, a guy being a lookout while you cross an open area and then you're lookout for them certainly screams, "you should have 2/3 of the normal chance to sneak in as if you went alone!"

 

[Hriston]

Is it better to require both to succeed and have the same two characters have a 56% chance of success?

For me, it’s better, yes. Why not? Then there’s an increased difficulty to bringing more power into a situation where being hidden is an advantage.

 

[Hriston]

Yeah, a guy being a lookout while you cross an open area and then you're lookout for them certainly screams, "you should have 2/3 of the normal chance to sneak in as if you went alone!"

It was 3/4 in the example given (56/75), and I have no idea what the fiction is you’re imagining. If you have a specific example, I’d be happy to discuss.