Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6525059" data-attributes="member: 6775031">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.</blockquote>

Verification