Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6255082" data-attributes="member: 1465">There was something like that in 3e, although now I checked the SRD and I can only find it for the Listen skill:"When several characters are listening to the same thing, a single 1d20 roll can be used for all the individuals’ Listen checks."I guess this assumes you only have one roll result, but then apply each PC's modifier to it separately, thus you still have one result per PC. In case of Listen, this pretty much equates to simply using the best modifier. Same would be for Spot, but the opposite would be used for Stealth.I don't think I would like that...I know it sucks when the worst PC brings failure to the whole party, but in its own way it really makes sense. You can argue that a super-sneaking-expert should be able to help a noisy character be less noisy. I would argue that it may or may not, but "should" is an opinion, not a fact. Being great at sneaking doesn't necessarily imply being able to make someone else sneak better simultaneously. We actually had the "aid another" rules in 3e (not sure they're still in 5e too) for a PC to improve someone else's skill (or attack) roll result, but the price to pay was generally that you have to spend your time aiding rather than doing that action yourself. Makes sense for example in climbing: one PC dragging and pulling another up, but the overall cost is reduced speed (i.e. making once a check to climb yourself and another to help another, in the same time while you could have made two climb actions if you were alone). Makes less sense for skills like perception, at least it's hard to explain how you can improve someone's senses just because your own are great. Realism trumps gamism. For the simple reason that a game based on realistic assumptions can always easily made super-heroic (i.e. unrealistic) by adding spells and supernatural powers, as you say magic can do anything. That game supports all range of fantasy, from no-magic to godslike.But if you throw away realism and base the common (i.e. affecting everyone, magic or not) rules of the game on unrealistic outcomes, only the gamist playstyle is supported, suspension of disbelief becomes harder, and a lot of people simply cannot stand such a game and walk away.I didn't come up with the idea that 5e has to be inclusive of as many gamestyles as possible... it was WotC's decision, but now the consequence is that realism is more important in 5e than in every previous edition.(PS: "realism" is very different from "simulationism")</blockquote>

Verification