D&D 5E Rules We Have Been Doing Wrong This Whole Time

[Seramus]

For stealth, I do the group check as:

Enemy PP is 18, so the DC is 18.
Entire party rolls stealth.
Three pass, two fail.
Entire party sneaks by.

OR

Two pass, three fail?
The enemy notices you!

That's not including all the possible modifiers like enemies being distracted, different lighting, etc.

 

[Seramus]

Darkvision does not say, according to the SRD, anything about seeing better in dim light.

That's a known goof that got errata'd. You can find the correct text under entries like Dwarf or the beginning of the Monstrous Manual.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Darkvision does not say, according to the SRD, anything about seeing better in dim light.

"Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in darkness as if the darkness were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned. However, the creature can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray"

That's a known goof that got errata'd. You can find the correct text under entries like Dwarf or the beginning of the Monstrous Manual.

Huh, strange thing for the SRD to miss. Both the PHB and the Basic Rules have had it complete from the start:

"Many creatures in fantasy gaming worlds, especially those that dwell underground, have darkvision. Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in dim light as if it were bright light and in darkness as if it were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned. However, the creature can't discern color in that darkness, only shades of gray."

 

[Reynard]

Huh, strange thing for the SRD to miss. Both the PHB and the Basic Rules have had it complete from the start:

"Many creatures in fantasy gaming worlds, especially those that dwell underground, have darkvision. Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in dim light as if it were bright light and in darkness as if it were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned. However, the creature can't discern color in that darkness, only shades of gray."

My guess is WotC never updated the SRD. Sometimes I really, really HATE that they don't treat it like Paizo does.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Darkvision does not say, according to the SRD, anything about seeing better in dim light.

"Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in darkness as if the darkness were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned. However, the creature can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray"

Sadly you looked into the wrong srd:

This is straight from the elven entry:

"Darkvision. Accustomed to twilit forests and the night sky, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray."

 

[aco175]

I was using healing Hit Dice wrong for a while. We used to get all of them back after a long rest instead of only half of them. Must have been some 4e surges leftover. Did not really change anything though once we started only getting half. I think we noticed that you get the Con bonus for each die about the same time so it may have balanced out.

 

[Reynard]

Sadly you looked into the wrong srd:

This is straight from the elven entry:

"Darkvision. Accustomed to twilit forests and the night sky, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray."

SUPER frustrating.

 

[Mannahnin]

I learned not too long ago that I've been doing group Stealth checks "wrong" for years.

How I've been doing it: everyone makes a Stealth check, and I take the lowest result. The assumption being that the group is only as stealthy as its least-stealthy member.

How the rules say to do it: everyone makes a Stealth check and I'm supposed to take the average (I think?) or something like that. The assumption being that monks and rogues can exude so much stealth that it suppresses the noise and sheen of nearby suits of armor. Somehow.

Anyway, I like my way better.

Neither of those are how you do it, not that it matters (you can do it however you like).

Group checks, though, would be that whatever the dc happens to be, if half the party makes the dc, then they make the group check. If more than half the party fails, then the group check is failed.

You don't have to use group checks for stealth, though, unless you want to. (It's usually only worth doing as a group check for a "general" stealth check (such as across a fairly large area) not for more specific us-vs-them.

Yeah, I definitely prefer the book group check rules for this.

The "the group is only as stealthy as the least stealthy member" approach is more realistic, but it makes Dex even more of a god stat and further devalues heavy armor. Even with all-unarmored groups, it still makes group stealth extremely unlikely to achieve, just due to math. With five people rolling, you've got a roughly 68% chance of at least one roll being under 5.

In terms of the fiction, I tend to envision it as the stealthier characters helping the heavy armored folks muffle the plates & chain links, and leading the way through terrain, showing the less-dextrous folks what twigs not to step on, etc.

 

[Retreater]

Well I've been doing Stealth wrong too, apparently. I do prefer using my homebrewed Skill Challenge adjacent method for all group tests. I'd rather my players to think of creative solutions for their characters to succeed than to fail at skills their characters are not trained in.
So if they're in the woods, maybe allow a Nature check in place of a Stealth for a character to find advantageous underbrush (or avoid noisy growth). Or a Perception roll to notice when the guard is distracted.

 

[Umbran]

... but a free person!

All poetic bombast aside, free people can choose to stick by rules, because they like them. Your suggestion that they are cogs in a machine for doing so is insulting.

Let folks play how they like, without casting aspersions on them personally for doing so, please and thanks.