D&D 5E How Do You Handle Group Skill Challenges?

[MarkB]

I instituted this for Stealth, which I know most DMs would not.

Going by this thread so far, it seems that many would. Which is unsurprising, as it's the recommended rule for group checks in the PHB.

 

[Quickleaf]

I'm curious how you (or your DM) handle group skill challenges. You know, situations in the game where success or failure depends on the entire group contributing. Things like:

• Everyone trying to sneak past a sleeping monster (Stealth).
• The group trying to hunt and forage for nearby food and fresh water (Survival).
• The party spending an afternoon at the market, listening for rumors (Investigation).
• Everyone hanging out at the docks, on the lookout for a wanted criminal (Perception).
• And so on and so forth. Basically, any situation where the entire group is using combined effort to overcome a singular challenge.

How does your table handle that?

Do you have everyone in the group make the same Skill check, and then average the results? take the highest/lowest?
Do you only ask characters who are proficient with that skill to make the roll?
Do you ask one player to make the check with Advantage (which assumes someone else in the party is using the Help action)?
Do you combine all of the results, against a higher DC?
Do you do something else entirely?

What everyone said about the group check rules is 100% true. Those will work in at least half or more of the situations players tend to find themselves in. I treat those as the quick and dirty rules.

When I want something more curated, tailored, boutique, or in-depth, that's when I start to draw on other approaches. A couple examples from my games using those 4 scenarios as a basis...

• Everyone trying to sneak past a sleeping monster (Stealth).

In a recent game, my players were traveling through a canyon (in a miles-spanning necropolis) to reach a tomb. They found skeletal giant vultures resting in a dormant state on several rocky protrusions and canyon walls. The players wanted to sneak past, but it was clear they didn't have sufficient cover or invisibility to sneak the whole way – in other words, it would come down to a sprint, the only question was how far of a sprint. So I used an average of everyone's Stealth rolls to determine how many squares away from the closest skeletal vulture they would start. I think the formula I used was 20 - average Stealth roll in squares (5-foot). IIRC they started 7 squares away.

• The group trying to hunt and forage for nearby food and fresh water (Survival).

I've only ever had two players express interest in food gathering simultaneously, so it became a Help situation where one player rolled with advantage. In the greater context of exploration, for instance during Tomb of Annihilation, I assembled/created several fun random flora & fauna tables, as well an unexpected discovery tables – so besides the Survival check, I'd also have players roll on one or more of those tables. At one point there were 3 PCs with herbalism kit proficiency, but we tended to resolve each independently because they wanted a maximum diversity of herbs.

• The party spending an afternoon at the market, listening for rumors (Investigation).

Last time I did this, there was no ability check. Instead I had each player roll on a Rumors Table, and then narrated each of them acquiring their rumor in a way suiting that PC's background / story / character. It's extremely rare in my games for "listening for rumors" to have a meaningful consequence of failure, so I prefer not to attach an ability check. The only time I recall asking for a check was when the PCs were trying to ask around discretely to avoid attracting unwanted attention – but there were actually multiple abilities/skills involved in that case.

• Everyone hanging out at the docks, on the lookout for a wanted criminal (Perception).

Last game my players were tracking a criminal to the docks. I seeded multiple clues. The way I handle clues has a lot in common with the GUMSHOE role-playing game – I don't typically "gate" them behind an ability check; instead you go to the area with the clue, or you ask the person with the clue? You get the clue. It's the interpretation of the clue where you need to put on your thinking cap. For example, they were able to learn from witnesses that the dead criminal was loaded onto a funeral barge, however they clearly found his footprints and no sign of blood, injury, or combat. One minute he was standing, next he was on his back.

That's when one player examined the scene more closely (Perception check) and found a bit of dark dirt scattered around the spot the criminal laid down.

Another player made an Investigation check to realize this dark dirt was slightly salty and had high clay content – like the grave dirt they'd encountered in a nearby necropolis across the river. So it was grave dirt.

Another player made an Arcana check and realized that grave dirt was used as a component in create undead & feign death.

Thus they hypothesized (correctly) that the criminal had feign death cast on him so as to be able to get on a funeral barge and cross the river into the necropolis. They still are wondering WHY go to all the trouble, but they also know the spell only lasts 1 hour and they are approximately 30 minutes behind the criminal...

 

[Sword of Spirit]

One thing I really dislike are checks where everyone rolls, but a single success (such as a knowledge check) means, effectively, the whole party succeeds, or a single failure (such as a Stealth check) means the whole party fails. Same goes for the 20 goblins example. Do we want Stealth to actually be possible for groups or not? Do want the party to have a reasonable chance of not knowing something or not?

In situations like that (best or worse result is effectively party result), I only roll one d20 for the whole group, and everyone individually adds their modifier (not all combined) to get their personal result. This means the best or worst party member carries the day, but there isn't super Advantage/Disadvantage from a bunch of rolls.

If more than one person in the group is proficient in the check (or no proficiency applies), then two people can roll (for purposes of visualizing individual results, I randomly assign each other party member to share one of the d20 rolls), or Advantage can be applied. (This only applies when it's the single success = party success scenario, since those are mutually exclusive with single failure = party failure.)

I also use RAW group checks in situations where they could help each other. In Stealth situations where the group is sneaking together, I give them the choice of which system to use.

I also require increasingly greater amounts of time for rechecks. So picking a lock might require 1 action for the first try, 1 minute for the next, 1 hour for the third, then a day, week, month, and then that stupid lock is your bane and you just can't figure out how it's built.

If the situation substantially changes, you can also make a new check.

I like the way these systems work together for skill/ability checks. It gives me results that create a consistent and believable world, and works game-wise.

 

[Morrus]

One thing I really dislike are checks where everyone rolls, but a single success (such as a knowledge check) means, effectively, the whole party succeeds, or a single failure (such as a Stealth check) means the whole party fails. Same goes for the 20 goblins example. Do we want Stealth to actually be possible for groups or not? Do want the party to have a reasonable chance of not knowing something or not?

In situations like that (best or worse result is effectively party result), I only roll one d20 for the whole group, and everyone individually adds their modifier (not all combined) to get their personal result. This means the best or worst party member carries the day, but there isn't super Advantage/Disadvantage from a bunch of rolls.

If more than one person in the group is proficient in the check (or no proficiency applies), then two people can roll (for purposes of visualizing individual results, I randomly assign each other party member to share one of the d20 rolls), or Advantage can be applied. (This only applies when it's the single success = party success scenario, since those are mutually exclusive with single failure = party failure.)

I also use RAW group checks in situations where they could help each other. In Stealth situations where the group is sneaking together, I give them the choice of which system to use.

I also require increasingly greater amounts of time for rechecks. So picking a lock might require 1 action for the first try, 1 minute for the next, 1 hour for the third, then a day, week, month, and then that stupid lock is your bane and you just can't figure out how it's built.

If the situation substantially changes, you can also make a new check.

I like the way these systems work together for skill/ability checks. It gives me results that create a consistent and believable world, and works game-wise.

Are you not a fan the core rules group checks (more than half need to succeed)?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Are you not a fan the core rules group checks (more than half need to succeed)?

Yeah, that's what I meant by the RAW group checks. I usually use them in situations where it feels like the ability of the party to cover for each other and drag each other down are both present, and it really is something they are working together on as a group, while I use my other system when a single best or worse roll really should get the job done (such as a group check to recall lore--why would the wizard be less likely to know the answer because of what others rolled?)

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yeah, that's what I meant by the RAW group checks. I usually use them in situations where it feels like the ability of the party to cover for each other and drag each other down are both present, and it really is something they are working together on as a group, while I use my other system when a single best or worse roll really should get the job done (such as a group check to recall lore--why would the wizard be less likely to know the answer because of what others rolled?)

Seems like recalling lore is typically something that is not appropriate for a group check in the first place. That said, your solution sounds like it works fine - although, for our table, I prefer to let the players roll their own ability checks. Having everyone roll could work, too, with each being adjudicated separately. Or only calling for a roll from those that have the possibility of knowing the lore due to background/class/race also could work. Varied DM options depending on the situation/preference.

 

[MarkB]

Yeah, that's what I meant by the RAW group checks. I usually use them in situations where it feels like the ability of the party to cover for each other and drag each other down are both present, and it really is something they are working together on as a group, while I use my other system when a single best or worse roll really should get the job done (such as a group check to recall lore--why would the wizard be less likely to know the answer because of what others rolled?)

If they're doing it as a group, it might be that two or more people come up with different recollections, and the group can't decide which one is accurate.

But for knowledge checks I try to limit it to the person with the best modifier rolling, and getting advantage on the check if someone helps them.

 

[Oofta]

If they're doing it as a group, it might be that two or more people come up with different recollections, and the group can't decide which one is accurate.

But for knowledge checks I try to limit it to the person with the best modifier rolling, and getting advantage on the check if someone helps them.

Same here. The primary person can discuss it with others (if proficient) and get advantage.

There are quite a few checks I only allow once. Knowledge checks can occasionally be an exception if you can get to a library or some relevant reference material.

 

[billd91]

I'm curious how you (or your DM) handle group skill challenges. You know, situations in the game where success or failure depends on the entire group contributing. Things like:

• Everyone trying to sneak past a sleeping monster (Stealth).
• The group trying to hunt and forage for nearby food and fresh water (Survival).
• The party spending an afternoon at the market, listening for rumors (Investigation).
• Everyone hanging out at the docks, on the lookout for a wanted criminal (Perception).
• And so on and so forth. Basically, any situation where the entire group is using combined effort to overcome a singular challenge.

I guess ultimately it depends on the challenge like so:

• If it is something everybody has to do like sneaking past a sleeping monster, I use the group check as in the rules. Everybody makes the roll and if half or more succeed, the group succeeds.
• If it's something that can be done by one or subset of a few PCs but everyone wants to help like foraging or spotting a criminal, it's easier to pair them up and have the ones with the higher skills roll with advantage.
• If it's listening for rumors, no roll necessary - I want them to have rumors. If they're looking for specific information, then it's the immediately preceding bullet point.

 

[Jaegermonstrous]

On a related note, I'd love to know more about Matt Mercer's group checks for the Raise Dead spell. It's obviously some kind of ritual, and some kind of challenge, but that's all that I can really say about it without seeing his notes.

I really like the rules Mercer uses for resurrection, and I've been using those rules in my home game for a while. They add tension to the scene, allow your PCs to contribute in both a storytelling and mechanics way, and take some of the pressure off your cleric.

You can find an article which details how they work here.