D&D 5E how to run long distance travelling without it sucking

[TreChriron]

...

For 5 PCs where three must succeed, the odds are only 17%.

...

This is a good point. You should have a "scout" who can benefit from one person assisting. The group goes where the scout leads them. If you hire a local or expert, you can have the group scout be the assistant and "keep an eye" on the path forward.

I would also use passive Perception a lot.

 

[Manbearcat]

The math on group checks can get a little odd though if you don't adjust the DCs downward when more characters are involved in the check. For the sake of simplicity, let's say the average bonus for the PCs is 0, the DC for the task is 15:

Two characters (one doing the task with the other taking the Help action) has a 51% chance of success.

Now if we go with 3 PCs and a group check where 2 or more must succeed, the odds of success drop significantly to 22%.

If we go with 4 PCs (2 must succeed), the odds are a more favorable 35%, but still not as good as one character with one helping.

For 5 PCs where three must succeed, the odds are only 17%.

Players that know the math (and have an odd-numbered party) might just try to avoid making group checks like the plague which I'm sure was not the intent of the mechanic. Because I always have four players, my general rule of thumb is to drop the DC by 5 for a group check of 3 to 4 and rule that a fifth person (like an NPC) isn't of any help and possibly represents that one too many cooks spoiling the broth.

This dovetails rather nicely with my posts on the other thread about objective vs subjective DCs. I haven't done an extensive analysis to establish a baseline competency across a spectrum of builds across levels. However, my guess is that if you were going to establish a subjective DC framework for 5e (roughly representing 4e, 13th Age, and DW), I'd probably go something like this:

[TABLE="width: 500"] [TR] [TD]Level/Difficulty[/TD] [TD]Easy[/TD] [TD]Medium[/TD] [TD]Hard[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]1-4[/TD] [TD]8[/TD] [TD]12[/TD] [TD]16[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]5-12[/TD] [TD]9[/TD] [TD]13[/TD] [TD]18[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]13-20[/TD] [TD]10[/TD] [TD]15[/TD] [TD]20[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]
I rather like the paradigm of:

Trained/Prof + PAS (primary ability score) = ~ auto-success on E, ~ 80 % success on M, ~ 60 % success on H

UT/N-prof + SAS (secondary) or T/P + TAS = ~ auto-success on E, ~ 45 % success on M, ~ 25 % success on H

That would aid in the Group Check math problem you're referring to, especially if you allow secondary members accept an auto-failure on their effort to use the Help action.

---

As a quick aside, when I was running one-offs for the playtest packets and for the evening one-off that I ran (which basically mocked the prior session of a current game with a different system), I ran the unified conflict resolution system I devised for 13th Age (and used the 1-4 numbers above as subjective DCs). Its pretty simple and handles dramatic momentum rather well. It was used for a travel scenario like the player in the lead post is looking for. It was akin to a Deuce game in Tennis:

Campaign Win < Disadvantage < Square One > Advantage > Campaign Loss

It works to keep the situation in the most dramatic areas (cusp of victory, edge of defeat) with the most interesting outcomes for as long as possible until the conflict is cemented either way. 5e's disad/ad mechanic works well to support that.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

There's always the travel MONTAGE!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Players that know the math (and have an odd-numbered party) might just try to avoid making group checks like the plague which I'm sure was not the intent of the mechanic. Because I always have four players, my general rule of thumb is to drop the DC by 5 for a group check of 3 to 4 and rule that a fifth person (like an NPC) isn't of any help and possibly represents that one too many cooks spoiling the broth.

Group checks exist to mitigate the chance of failure for situations where, traditionally, you would need everyone to succeed. The chances of 3/5 of the party making a check to pass undetected by a camp of trolls are much better than the chances of a party needing 5/5 to succeed, regardless of the DC of that check.

 

[iserith]

Group checks exist to mitigate the chance of failure for situations where, traditionally, you would need everyone to succeed. The chances of 3/5 of the party making a check to pass undetected by a camp of trolls are much better than the chances of a party needing 5/5 to succeed, regardless of the DC of that check.

This doesn't change the fact that there is a disparity between even-numbered groups and odd-numbered ones. The latter are more likely to fail a group check than an even-numbered one.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This doesn't change the fact that there is a disparity between even-numbered groups and odd-numbered ones. The latter are more likely to fail a group check than an even-numbered one.

But they're both more likely to succeed than any group making a bunch of individual checks, which is the point. If you have a mathematically-inclined group, then they'll be clamoring to take on a group check, in place of doing anything individually. (And/or they'll try and hire an NPC spotter, to help cover the mis-steps of the less capable party members, and bring the odds even further into favor.)

 

[iserith]

But they're both more likely to succeed than any group making a bunch of individual checks, which is the point. If you have a mathematically-inclined group, then they'll be clamoring to take on a group check, in place of doing anything individually. (And/or they'll try and hire an NPC spotter, to help cover the mis-steps of the less capable party members, and bring the odds even further into favor.)

One would think a player like yourself would have an issue with the mechanic making it harder on odd-numbered groups compared with no corresponding in-world explanation for it. Perhaps odd numbers are unlucky?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

One would think a player like yourself would have an issue with the mechanic making it harder on odd-numbered groups compared with no corresponding in-world explanation for it. Perhaps odd numbers are unlucky?

You would think, but no. It makes sense to me that some people who are good at a task can make up for some people who are bad at a task, in some situations. I can buy that an even number of people might be better off, from an organizational standpoint, than an odd number. I've heard of the buddy system.

You seem to have an issue with the scaling of tasks to include larger groups, but getting six people to sneak across a field is a fundamentally different task than getting four or five people to do the same. What you should really be looking at is the difference between success on the same task using group checks and using individual checks - a group of four compared to four individuals, or a group of five compared to five individuals.

Notice how the benefit of group checks actually improves as you add more participants? The party of seven gets way more benefit from the group check than a party of four would get. Maybe the curve isn't quite as smooth you as might like, but in a system that uses blanket Advantage and Disadvantage rules - where Advantage and Disadvantage contribute more based on the difficulty of the task, but not based on the source or magnitude of that Advantage or Disadvantage - that's an acceptable trade-off in exchange for simplicity and expedience. There's no point where the group rules act counter-intuitively; you're never worse off for using them, regardless of how many are in your party.

 

[iserith]

Food for thought.