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

[Charlaquin]

The premise is that they're working together to achieve a better result than they would if each of them made the attempt unsupported, the more proficient providing assistance to those who are less skilled. Thus, the successes of some compensate for the failures of others.

Which definitely works, but is a bit more abstract than I would prefer. A group check on stealth assumes that the characters with the higher Dexterity (Stealth) bonuses are skilled enough at moving stealthily that they are able to help the characters with lower modifiers out it and hand waves the specific details of how they do it. And there’s nothing wrong with that necessarily, but personally I prefer to get a bit more specific than that on what the characters are doing to help. That’s why I prefer to have the character with the lowest modifier roll, and if the other players want to help mitigate that character’s weakness, they can describe specific goal-and-approach actions they take to do so. It’s still somwhat abstracted, as we’re only focusing on what the characters do to shore up their weakest link and hand waving everything else. But that added bit of specificity, for me, helps keep the world from disappearing into the abstraction, and also cuts down on the number of checks that need to be rolled to resolve the group action.

 

[MarkB]

Which definitely works, but is a bit more abstract than I would prefer. A group check on stealth assumes that the characters with the higher Dexterity (Stealth) bonuses are skilled enough at moving stealthily that they are able to help the characters with lower modifiers out it and hand waves the specific details of how they do it. And there’s nothing wrong with that necessarily, but personally I prefer to get a bit more specific than that on what the characters are doing to help. That’s why I prefer to have the character with the lowest modifier roll, and if the other players want to help mitigate that character’s weakness, they can describe specific goal-and-approach actions they take to do so. It’s still somwhat abstracted, as we’re only focusing on what the characters do to shore up their weakest link and hand waving everything else. But that added bit of specificity, for me, helps keep the world from disappearing into the abstraction, and also cuts down on the number of checks that need to be rolled to resolve the group action.

What I dislike about "weakest character rolls" is that it singles out the person who's bad at something and then makes them the reason the entire group fails. And if it's for something that comes up a lot, like stealth, it gives the player that treatment over and over again.

 

[Charlaquin]

What I dislike about "weakest character rolls" is that it singles out the person who's bad at something and then makes them the reason the entire group fails. And if it's for something that comes up a lot, like stealth, it gives the player that treatment over and over again.

That’s definitely a valid criticism, particularly if the party regularly engages in such activities as a group. In a “weakest character rolls” situation, the smartest move is generally just to have the strongest character do the thing themselves. And, personally, that’s a positive result of such a rule in my view. But, if your group really hates splitting the party, then this rule probably won’t work as well for you.

 

[billd91]

That’s definitely a valid criticism, particularly if the party regularly engages in such activities as a group. In a “weakest character rolls” situation, the smartest move is generally just to have the strongest character do the thing themselves. And, personally, that’s a positive result of such a rule in my view. But, if your group really hates splitting the party, then this rule probably won’t work as well for you.

The whole weakest character rolls thing tends to take adventure types or activities completely off the table - D&D being the game of adventuring parties that it is. Heavily armored clerics and fighters have been putting the kibosh on infiltration scenarios for years because they tend to suck at stealth. The group check puts those adventures and activities back on the table because their deficiencies in stealth can be overcome by the party as a whole.

In the last game session I was in, our 11th level PCs were all sneaking into a city while a force of rebels were causing a distraction. Two of the 5 of us are highly competent at stealth, one is OK, and the other 2 are hampered by disadvantage on the rolls thanks to their armor. We passed the group check either 3-2 or 4-1 with the cleric rolling particularly poorly and the DM narrated it well in a way that emphasized cooperation in passing the check as he described my rogue pulling the cleric into an alcove and keeping him still for a moment while the sentries passed by. It captured the essence of what the group check is about.

 

[Charlaquin]

The whole weakest character rolls thing tends to take adventure types or activities completely off the table - D&D being the game of adventuring parties that it is. Heavily armored clerics and fighters have been putting the kibosh on infiltration scenarios for years because they tend to suck at stealth. The group check puts those adventures and activities back on the table because their deficiencies in stealth can be overcome by the party as a whole.

“Weakest character rolls” does still allow for group stealth challenges, the heavily armored characters just need to remove their armor or invest in mithril armor. I actually think shoring up a single character’s weak roll is often easier than trying to get over half the party to pass the check. Of course, sending the stealthiest character alone is still more effective when the option is available, and again, I consider that a positive outcome.

In the last game session I was in, our 11th level PCs were all sneaking into a city while a force of rebels were causing a distraction. Two of the 5 of us are highly competent at stealth, one is OK, and the other 2 are hampered by disadvantage on the rolls thanks to their armor.

So take the heavy armor off. I would think that would be the obvious first step in any group stealth mission.

We passed the group check either 3-2 or 4-1 with the cleric rolling particularly poorly and the DM narrated it well in a way that emphasized cooperation in passing the check as he described my rogue pulling the cleric into an alcove and keeping him still for a moment while the sentries passed by. It captured the essence of what the group check is about.

Ah, yeah. I’m not a fan of the DM narrating what the PCs do, so this would be a no-go for me. Glad your group enjoyed it though!

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The whole weakest character rolls thing tends to take adventure types or activities completely off the table - D&D being the game of adventuring parties that it is. Heavily armored clerics and fighters have been putting the kibosh on infiltration scenarios for years because they tend to suck at stealth. The group check puts those adventures and activities back on the table because their deficiencies in stealth can be overcome by the party as a whole.

In the last game session I was in, our 11th level PCs were all sneaking into a city while a force of rebels were causing a distraction. Two of the 5 of us are highly competent at stealth, one is OK, and the other 2 are hampered by disadvantage on the rolls thanks to their armor. We passed the group check either 3-2 or 4-1 with the cleric rolling particularly poorly and the DM narrated it well in a way that emphasized cooperation in passing the check as he described my rogue pulling the cleric into an alcove and keeping him still for a moment while the sentries passed by. It captured the essence of what the group check is about.

I'm on board with what you are laying down here - with the exception of the DM telling you what your PC did. At our table, the DM would describe some external factors that contributed to the success and/or ask the player to describe something cool their rogue did to help the clanky cleric.

 

[jmartkdr2]

So take the heavy armor off. I would think that would be the obvious first step in any group stealth mission.

More likely it'll be "don't attempt stealth, because if the guy with a +0 fails the roll (which they probably will) they'll have an 8-point penalty to AC and get ganked quickly, since every attack will hit. Better to just fight our way through, that way we can use the whole party."

Or, if you know this is how the dm runs stealth, only play dex-based warriors.

 

[CleverNickName]

More likely it'll be "don't attempt stealth, because if the guy with a +0 fails the roll (which they probably will) they'll have an 8-point penalty to AC and get ganked quickly, since every attack will hit. Better to just fight our way through, that way we can use the whole party."

Or, if you know this is how the dm runs stealth, only play dex-based warriors.

I've never heard of a player refusing to take an action because they lack proficiency in a skill, or because they have Disadvantage on the roll. It just means the stakes are higher, that's all.

I've seen plenty of lightly-armored, high-Dex, Stealth-proficient rogues roll worse Stealth checks than the heavily-armored fighters and paladins in the party. No matter what your bonuses and penalties to that roll might be, everyone always has the same chance of rolling a 2 as they do of rolling a 19. That high modifier sure looks nice, but it's never a guarantee of success.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I've never heard of a player refusing to take an action because they lack proficiency in a skill, or because they have Disadvantage on the roll. It just means the stakes are higher, that's all.

I've seen plenty of lightly-armored, high-Dex, Stealth-proficient rogues roll worse Stealth checks than the heavily-armored fighters and paladins in the party. No matter what your bonuses and penalties to that roll might be, everyone always has the same chance of rolling a 2 as they do of rolling a 19. That high modifier sure looks nice, but it's never a guarantee of success.

I've seen a people opt not to sneak into the dungeon because the paladin is guaranteed to fail eventually. It just becomes a thing the party doesn't do, until they get a magic option to re-add it to the list of options (which could be as easy as *pass without trace). I think this thinking was more common in 3X games because the difference between high and low stealth were much bigger, but I've seen players who started in 5e follow the same line of thought.

I mean, why take the high-stakes option (sneaking in full plate) when there's a low-stakes option (fighting in full-plate)?

 

[Oofta]

I've never heard of a player refusing to take an action because they lack proficiency in a skill, or because they have Disadvantage on the roll. It just means the stakes are higher, that's all.

I've seen plenty of lightly-armored, high-Dex, Stealth-proficient rogues roll worse Stealth checks than the heavily-armored fighters and paladins in the party. No matter what your bonuses and penalties to that roll might be, everyone always has the same chance of rolling a 2 as they do of rolling a 19. That high modifier sure looks nice, but it's never a guarantee of success.

When you're wearing heavy armor and have an 8 dex? Having to make a stealth check feels like you're being punished because you get tired of all those dex builds.