The Randomness of the D20

[fuindordm]

It is an interesting problem, and the very reason that I sometimes use 2d10 for opposed skill checks.
It works well to reduce the luck factor, but doesn't fully address the issue of large parties.

 

[variant]

If the first player who rolls misses the check, give disadvantage to everyone else attempting it. This might bog down the game though.

 

[Grydan]

You don't get tired of seeing one monster's decent hide check opposed by 5 players' (and sometimes their pets') wildly-randomized spot checks? Or similar results on a bluff/insight check. Or an opposed intelligence check.

I don't.

The more eyes and ears trying to find something, whether in game or in life, the more likely it is to be spotted.

Hiding from a group of alert adventurers in anywhere near melee range should be spectacularly difficult.

 

[am181d]

I don't.

The more eyes and ears trying to find something, whether in game or in life, the more likely it is to be spotted.

Hiding from a group of alert adventurers in anywhere near melee range should be spectacularly difficult.

I just had a vision of a crowd of 20 adventurers huddled over a Where's Waldo book.

 

[Gorgoroth]

a crowd of

20 adventurers, if they're sitting quietly at camp, have a near perfect chance to hear anything mortal sneak up on them...but the bigger the search crowd, the more noise the party makes, which should increase the DC by some. I don't know by how much, but ever try listening in on something quiet when there'a a bunch of other blips and bloops and things going bump in the night ? (probably the dwarf in platemail, for instance).

Everyone gets their checks, but DC goes up by 1 per party member above, say, 3. Or everyone gets disadvantage from the start if you're more than 3. Less than 3, you're likely to be a swat team-style advance scouting sub-party anyway.

 

[Dragoslav]

That sounds like the rules for aiding skill checks in 4e. You could say that, for perception checks, the party member with the highest perception makes the check, and anyone else who wants to try has to roll an assist and risk giving a stacking -1 penalty. So if the PC gets a 28 perception vs. a DC of 25, and then 4 incompetent party members each give a -4, then nobody notices anything out of the ordinary.

 

[Stalker0]

I can't think of something more Dnd than I guy getting the lucky 20 on a die and doing something he normally had no right to mechanically.

So no autofails for me please.

 

[Loonook]

Provide penalties for Aiding Another if you fail, and make the highest roller the main spotter. Gives players the option to throw in with their poor checks if they need the extra bump (i.e. the roll may fail without it) and seems to fit my personal view of the fluff behind the crunch.

You have three individuals crowded around, huddled listening and trying to spot the beastie who just ate the local Red Shirts. They're scared, they know the thing moves in such a way as to need all hands on the wheel and all eyes on the road.

Your main Spotter makes his roll... He has failed before against the creature, so he requests Aid. The players choose who will Aid, and then make their checks. Success? +2. Failure? -2. The failure represents the guy who is too jumpy and leaps at the shadows, paranoid hearing, etc.

Seems pretty simple.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

My preferred solution is that only the person with the best chance rolls. It's kind of like saying "search skills don't stack."