D&D 5E Group skill checks

[Ovinomancer]

If I could add a few details to your example, (a) the DM tells the players about some circumstances that will make sneaking easier if they work together, so (b) the players declare actions to coordinate their attempts at sneaking, resulting in (c) the DM calling for a group Stealth check to see if they all succeed or fail as a group. Honestly, I still feel like I would need more details to understand what about (b) leads to (c) rather than to separate checks to determine whether each party member is noticed individually.

Since it doesn’t matter how I would adjudicate in the above example, allow me to explain the typical circumstances in which a Stealth check is called for in one of my games to shed some light on why I rule the way I’ve stated. (1) The DM describes the environment and any available options for interacting with it. (2) The players declare that their characters are traveling slowly in a certain direction, sneaking in order to avoid the notice of any creatures they might encounter. (3) The DM calls for a Dex (Stealth) check from each player to individually determine whether each PC remains unnoticed in case of an encounter.

This is informative. The sneaking doesn't seem to be useful in your adjudication for avoiding encounters outright, but only for positioning when encounters occur. Do you see any use for a check to see if encounters don't happen at all?

EG, in the overland travel rules of the game, the party can elect to travel at a slow pace so that they don't suffer disadvantage for travelling stealthily. When this happens, is there a check to see if no encounter happens because of the sneaking, or are you enforcing planned encounters and using the stealthy travel as an input to determine positioning in those encounters? I very much allow for the former -- I wouldn't use a group check to determine positioning in an encounter, but whether one was warranted at all.

 

[the Jester]

Reasonable loses to fun every time. This is a game, fun is a higher order objective than reasonable.

For your playstyle.

There isn't room for debate about that.

There absolutely is. The argument goes that the fun of the group is better served overall by enforcing reasonableness, even if there might be a moment now and then when it is lower.

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.

For your group, sure.

 

[the Jester]

EG, in the overland travel rules of the game, the party can elect to travel at a slow pace so that they don't suffer disadvantage for travelling stealthily.

Okay, so for me, this is a good example of when I might use a group Stealth check. Situations that are on a larger timescale, or with a range of success, such as the alert level of an area- that's where group Stealth checks work for me.

When this happens, is there a check to see if no encounter happens because of the sneaking, or are you enforcing planned encounters and using the stealthy travel as an input to determine positioning in those encounters? I very much allow for the former -- I wouldn't use a group check to determine positioning in an encounter, but whether one was warranted at all.

Some of my groups are infamous for dodging/avoiding encounters. This would be one way to do so.

 

[Blue]

For your playstyle.

NO. By definition, fun is the objective of every game, over reasonableness. Now, reasonableness/unreasonableness can and will impact your fun. But you need to measure it in fun.

That is not a playstyle difference, it's part of the definition about why people play games.

There absolutely is. The argument goes that the fun of the group is better served overall by enforcing reasonableness, even if there might be a moment now and then when it is lower.

Which I had address in the earlier post about converting reasonableness to fun. If something is unreasonable causing lots of unfun for a group, that's a problem. But again, unreasonableness -- as and by itself -- is not the problem, it's how it impacts the fun of the game.

A "reasonable" board game about war might be bogged down in endless approvals for money from civilain governments, civilian support or not for war, battle fatigue, etc. Fun for some, too crunchy for others. An unreasonable one might just focus on the strategy and the tactics and be more enjoyable for the majority.

For your group, sure.

You are telling me that, if a group of players got together in a team-based game like D&D to create a group of all stealthy characters, that the majority of them would be having more fun if the game mechanics were that they could not work as a team because the odds were too slim and they needed to split the party often and have some people sitting idle?

Sorry, that's not - to use the term you've been espousing - reasonable.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Okay, so for me, this is a good example of when I might use a group Stealth check. Situations that are on a larger timescale, or with a range of success, such as the alert level of an area- that's where group Stealth checks work for me.

Some of my groups are infamous for dodging/avoiding encounters. This would be one way to do so.

I'd tend to use a group check in any situation where the actions declared are ones where the group in question is using teamwork to accomplish the goal.

 

[Ancalagon]

Stealth is the one place I don't like group checks. It only takes one person to make noise... But, I also dont' like having everyone roll either. Haven't come up with a process I like yet.

If you don't allow group stealth checks, you are saying a group cannot be stealthy. That is the statistical consequence of such a ruling. I can elaborate and show the math if you wish.

The way I "picture it" is that the people with great rolls are either assisting the bad ones (padding to stop armor from clinking?) or making minor distractions to divert attention away from the party, or are spying on the guards and letting know the rest of the party when it is the time to go by.

 

[Ancalagon]

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

But by having a group check, the fickleness is "tamed"...

 

[Ancalagon]

For your group, sure.

I don't think this is a reasonable position.

If a group decides to make a "stealth party" - and they can only manage to be stealthy about a 1/4 of the time - that's not going to be unfun "just for your group" - it's going to be unfun for MOST groups that attempted to achieve this, and failed.

Group checks makes group stealth achievable.

 

[LordEntrails]

If you don't allow group stealth checks, you are saying a group cannot be stealthy. That is the statistical consequence of such a ruling. I can elaborate and show the math if you wish.

The way I "picture it" is that the people with great rolls are either assisting the bad ones (padding to stop armor from clinking?) or making minor distractions to divert attention away from the party, or are spying on the guards and letting know the rest of the party when it is the time to go by.

I understand the math. I understand there are many ways to look at it. I still haven't found one that I think is reasonably realistic AND fun FOR me.

 

[the Jester]

I don't think this is a reasonable position.

If a group decides to make a "stealth party" - and they can only manage to be stealthy about a 1/4 of the time - that's not going to be unfun "just for your group" - it's going to be unfun for MOST groups that attempted to achieve this, and failed.

Group checks makes group stealth achievable.

I find the notion that they're only going to be stealthy 1/4 of the time to be dubious, at best. Between modifiers, rerolls, and clever stratagems, I would expect a 'stealth party' to do far better than the numbers suggest.

To give an example- if one pc fails his check, the others might be able to provide a distraction that enables him to pass without being discovered even after being detected.

A "stealth party" should have stealthy missions that don't depend on one set of Stealth checks, IMHO.