PDA

View Full Version : [4e] group stealth in skill challanges



Kol Korran
2009-03-24, 06:19 AM
ok, i've posted a thread that contained a question on the subject but didn't get a satisfying answer. maybe if i try and explain it a bit:
i'm new to DMing in 4E, and the adventuring party is soon to try and sneak in a jungle full of ruins, with shifter search parties combing the area. i won't go into the details of the entire skill challenge, just this question:

how do you deal with the entire group sneaking in a non specific situation like a skill challange (in game time it's supposed to take hours)? on the previous thread some posters said that everyone should throw for stealth, and some characters could "aid another" for others. but:
- part of the DND skill system means that different party members are trained different skills and therefore cover/ compensate for the lack of training in others. if everyone rolls for stealth than that isn't implied. the system does work so for skills like conversation skills, knowledge skills, thievery and so, i would like it to work for stealth as well.

- a stealth expert doesn't just know how to move silently and avoid being seen, s/he also knows which route to take, how searchers think, and more. they can apply their skill strategically, not just tacticly, and therefore cover perhaps cover for the other's entire lack of training. this is why i though it would be ok for just some to rolls stealth, not all. what do you think, should this aspect of the stealth skill be dealt otherwise?

- when i thought about it though, adding unskilled members to sneaking party, as well as armor and such does reduce the general effectivenes of the strategic stealth expert. so these would have to come into effect somehow.

final idea: in the game there is "group stealth". the main stealthy guy rolls for it, but each of the others also roll a personal roll. if they pass a certain DC, they remain quiet and don't hinder tha main guy, if they roll poorly, they add a -2 to the main guy's roll. this way i think each would have a part, but the mai nstealth guy would still be in charge. a sort of hybrid approach i guess...

so playgrounders, any opinions?
Kol

Satyr
2009-03-24, 06:59 AM
If a group tries to move silently or to hide, the least subtle character makes the most noise - thee group is never going to be more stealhy than its loudest member. That is not a question of the rules, but of simple common sense, which should always be more important than the mechanical rules. I find your idea therefore counter-intuitive and not very helpful.

Norsesmithy
2009-03-24, 07:22 AM
I disagree, I think that the less skilled members of the group would be more sucessful at sneaking under the guidance of someone skilled at doing so.

I would probably have the group average its skill and use that number for the skill challenge rolls. Maybe enter the lowest score twice to skew the results down some.

Sebastian
2009-03-24, 08:25 AM
- a stealth expert doesn't just know how to move silently and avoid being seen, s/he also knows which route to take, how searchers think, and more. they can apply their skill strategically, not just tacticly, and therefore cover perhaps cover for the other's entire lack of training. this is why i though it would be ok for just some to rolls stealth, not all. what do you think, should this aspect of the stealth skill be dealt otherwise?


4e skill challenges are supposed to be abstraction anyway a character could roll athletics to pass on the treetops, another use bluff to imitate some animal ("I heard a rumor, oh, wait is just a cat/monkey/dire squirrel"), knowledge nature to find some herb/leaves/animal dung to rub yourself with to cover your smell, knowledge(arcana) to create a mini-silence spell, religion to invoke the protection of the saint protector/god of sneaky types, etc as long as they can come up with a good explanation (and you decide what is good) they can roll it, After all if you you can create a secret passage out of nothing just rolling a knowledge (history), then everything is possible.

sombrastewart
2009-03-24, 10:54 AM
I'm of the opinion that skill challenges should provide different avenues for different characters to contribute. By making everyone do the same thing, you bring down everyone; the stealth specialist and on down. Having an array of skills, as was mentioned above, is what I'd consider a preferential scenario. Just because the cleric or the barbarian isn't sneaky doesn't mean that the whole skill challenge has to go down the drain.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-24, 11:47 AM
Realistically, a group really is as silent as its loudest member. Which is to say, "I GOT A FOUR!!!". Weakest link breaks the chain.

But 4E is not supposed to be realistic, so yes, in a skill challenge you can depend on one guy to make all the stealth checks while the rest of the group has huge penalties, and they will still pass the skill challenge.

Kol Korran
2009-03-24, 12:55 PM
first of all, thanks for the responses so far.

secondly- my first priority is keeping things fun and exciting, that is why i tried to focus the stealth on the guy that knows his stealth. alternetavely the challenge cna go with the lousiest member doing the roll, and everyone else contributing to his succes with their roles.

thirdly- i didn't detail the entire skill challenge here. iplanned for other skills (so the other members of the party won't feel left out), and i intend to leave room for creative ideas (as players are oft to do) and of course- i plan to play it all.

that will do i think, thanks a lot. any other ideas are welcomed though...
Kol.

Yakk
2009-03-24, 02:19 PM
I like the 'pressure based' skill challenge.

The two core mechanics that differ this system from the standard skill challenge is:
1> Every player has an opportunity to make 1 skill roll towards progress per (unit of time).
2> Every (unit of time) that passes, the party gets one auto-failure due to delay.
3> The length of (unit of time) can be changed via DM fiat during the challenge -- but the idea of (unit of time) being 1 failure, and everyone having a chance to make a skill roll in it, stays sold.

...

In addition, your skill challenge can involve 'phases'. During a phase, the situation dictates what kind of environment the players are involved in. Ie, during a sneaking into the castle phase, the party is ... sneaking into the castle.

You can do 'preparation' for a phase and 'carry successes into it', but in general a given phase requires a certain number of successes to get past it. And the 'units of time' continue to tick away if someone does nothing, or 'aids another'.

...

Some 'phases' also require that everyone do a particular check (say, a stealth check) at least once before the phase is done. Note that failure just accumulates against the global failure counter.

...

A global failure counter is maintained. This failure counter can be used for a number of things.

1> It can trigger complications during the skill challenge. These can be things like a fight, loss of healing surges, damage, etc.

2> It can make the player's situation after they beat the challenge worse. Ie, every failure during the 'sneak into the castle' extended skill challenge might add another guard minion to the lich-king's defenders.

3> It can trigger a failure plot branch. Stumble too many times while breaking in, and the guard is called out, and you are in trroooouuuble!

...

Using this kind of framework, you can break a challenge into anticipated phases, and have anticipated consequences set up.

Some work has to be done to make sure that your failure count mechanics aren't too punative or too easy.

To balance this, first figure out what the 'target failure rate' is. This depends on which DC chart you are using. Suppose your target failure rate is 25%.

Then work out how many successes you want the group to have to accumulate. Say you want this to take 12 successes.

12 successes takes about 16 skill checks, given that failure rate, with 4 failures.

With 5 players, that will take 4 rounds to hit. That's 3 failures from time.

So you can expect, on average, that the party will have accumulated 7 failures in order to get those 12 successes. So, at the 7 failure point, you should drain the party of about as much resources as an encounter worth as much XP as the challenge would. If they accumulate more, things should be worse -- and if they accumulate less, things should be better.

Note that 'expected failures' on 'untrained stealth' is going to be higher than on trained stealth -- so if you force players to make a check against something untrained, take that into account.

Now, during the sneak part, the party can 'let one person handle getting the successes' -- but then the per-round failure count will keep ticking. They can aid another, do nothing, or what have you.

You can also let players "carry extra load" and go for hard successes and earn more than 1 success per skill roll (or get a 2nd skill roll attempt in the round, if you feel less generous). Because there is time pressure, 'saving time' becomes worthwhile.

Note that the time pressure need not be in the form of 'failure count'. A situation where you lose 1 healing surge per 'time period' generates time pressure all by itself (note that this kind of punishment is a quite harsh rate -- remember to budget out your party's expected damage from the encounter)

What is neat about this is that it isn't "You are good at stealth, so stealth rolls will be harder" -- you can do that, but you don't need to do it in order to make this 'build an encounter' stuff work. And if you don't do it, then your character who specialises in stealth gets _rewarded_, instead of punished, for the high stealth skill.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-24, 02:37 PM
I subscribe to the "lowest check, rolls" rule, though it falls into the "Sneaking City of Chicago" problem - there isn't any rule regarding a stealth penalty for large groups.

My modification:
- The lowest bonus member in the group rolls
This makes sense (least stealthy member is most likely to alert the guards) and is quick (one person rolling).

- For every member of the group above 1, put a -2 modifier on that roll
Large groups are inherently more difficult to hide, no matter how stealthy the individual members are.

If you would like to allow "helping" I'd use this extra rule:
- Someone other than the lowest stealth check can make the roll instead, but takes an additional -2 per member of the party with a lower stealth check than his.
This takes into account the extra difficulty of a Stealth Leader trying to keep an eye on all his charges, but allows an exceptionally stealthy character to more than make up for a small group of unstealthy types.

Thajocoth
2009-03-24, 04:36 PM
What we do in our group, is set a high DC and add everyone's rolls together.

Yakk
2009-03-24, 07:30 PM
I subscribe to the "lowest check, rolls" rule, though it falls into the "Sneaking City of Chicago" problem - there isn't any rule regarding a stealth penalty for large groups.

My modification:
- The lowest bonus member in the group rolls
This makes sense (least stealthy member is most likely to alert the guards) and is quick (one person rolling).
If I'm sneaky, and I have a Durkon with me, I'd use my stealth skills to find the path that would least cause noise. Then I'd tell Durkon to follow me, moving when I move, and stopping when I stop.

While Durkon could still go 'clank', I've removed Durkon's choice of path and choice of when to move (up to Durkon disobeying).


- For every member of the group above 1, put a -2 modifier on that roll
Large groups are inherently more difficult to hide, no matter how stealthy the individual members are.Aka, the 'if you want to do a stealth situation, send one single expert, and everyone else should go play on the Wii while we do the session'.

:)

If you would like to allow "helping" I'd use this extra rule:
- Someone other than the lowest stealth check can make the roll instead, but takes an additional -2 per member of the party with a lower stealth check than his.
This takes into account the extra difficulty of a Stealth Leader trying to keep an eye on all his charges, but allows an exceptionally stealthy character to more than make up for a small group of unstealthy types.
Now, do you grant large bonuses for "we do preparation before we attempt to be stealthy"?

Remember, in 4e a -10 modifier should take you from "competent" to "utterly useless" against a challenge. And with 4 allies that produces a -12 modifier -- in short, having a character knowledgeable about stealth in the group requires that person to be nearly a living ghost against any level-appropriate challenges in order for them to be reduced to merely competent at helping the party be sneaky.

If your goal is to prevent players from being stealthy, and to make any one player taking a stealth skill without everyone taking the stealth skill, you have pretty much succeeded with the rules you describe. Or, to be more explicit, what is the goal of your system?

How will it generate fun for 5 players, where 1 or 2 of which has stealth skills?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-24, 09:09 PM
Remember, in 4e a -10 modifier should take you from "competent" to "utterly useless" against a challenge. And with 4 allies that produces a -12 modifier -- in short, having a character knowledgeable about stealth in the group requires that person to be nearly a living ghost against any level-appropriate challenges in order for them to be reduced to merely competent at helping the party be sneaky.

If your goal is to prevent players from being stealthy, and to make any one player taking a stealth skill without everyone taking the stealth skill, you have pretty much succeeded with the rules you describe. Or, to be more explicit, what is the goal of your system?

How will it generate fun for 5 players, where 1 or 2 of which has stealth skills?

Hmm... I was just trying to model what a group sneaking around would look like while keeping it mechanically simple. The sort of behavior these rules produce seems to reflect reality - you send one guy who is sneaky to scout out ahead, not the entire army.

But you are right in that it destroys the ability for groups to participate in a stealth skill challenge. Let's see...

(1)The lowest bonus member in the group rolls by default. A character with a higher bonus may make the checks instead, but he suffers a -5 penalty on his checks.
This simplifies my rule and makes it more feasible for extremely stealthy characters to compensate for the suck of other members. I chose a -5 penalty to counter the Training Bonus - if you're not trained in Stealth, you're not going to be able to tell people how to sneak well.

(2)A group larger than 5 takes a -1 penalty on their stealth check per person over 5.
The "typical" party size is 5, so most parties suffer no problems. However, a large group of orcs or trolls should have more trouble sneaking up on you than a smaller group. A compromise.

Thoughts?

Reverent-One
2009-03-24, 09:17 PM
*snip*
Thoughts?

Hmm, I like them at least. The -5 may negate your stealth monkey's training bonus, but any attribute synergy or skill focus would still help him out without becoming unbalancing.

Tygell
2009-03-25, 03:43 PM
I'm not a DM, but this was the first idea that popped into my head:

- Each player rolls their own stealth check to beat the DC.
- For every 5 points over the DC a player rolls, he can give a +2 bonus to another player.
- Majority of the group has to pass the check for that portion of the skill challenge to succeed.

Kol Korran
2009-03-28, 06:07 AM
hhhmmm, thanks a bunch you guys. i especially like your ideas Yakk about Phases, and the Time Pressure. those will definetly go into my challange.

as to your suggested system Oracle Hunter, i think the -5 is a bit too harsh: why then to take stealth, if the presence of the other party members will utterly negate it? another character without stealth can make the roll just the same, all that will matter will be the dex bonus.

i think i will deal with group stealth by one character making the roll, and the others possibly hindering it with their own roles (-2 for the main guy's role if they fail), this way it simulates the main guy's expertise at somewhat migitating the other people's lack of stealthiness (choosing a route, preparing their equipment and so on), but they can still "blunder", and make things harder.

this however will only be done in cases when everyone must sneak together, most time i will let just one guy roll (maybe with minuses from the problematic armor. i'll think about it.)

so now i need to think up phases. perhaps you guys can help me out? to recap the scene:
- 4 characters (drow rogue, drow bard, dragonborn paladin and an eladrin wizard) have just arrived on a tropic island, where they are supposed to meet some natives who will guide them to a mystic oracle. (a guide meets them on the shore) however, there are more natives on the islands- shifters, that for some reason attack the party as they land on the beach. soon after the party wins, their guide hurries them (sign language and gibberish, the natives speak another language) into the jungle, to crumbling ruins of a once great city, on the way towards the village. as they run to the ruins they suddenly hear the horns of the other shiftergroups, hunting for them...

- my thoughts for the challenge include:

3 stages: sneaking through the city till finding an old channel filled with water and ocvered with vegatation (the characters will have to understand what they are looking for from their guide's language)
- swimming stealthily through the channel, maybe dealing with some small fight that must be won quickly before it \draws attention (jungle rats swarm?)
emergin from the tunnle near the end ofthe city, they see one/ two lookouts (haven't decided yet) that they need to take down or sneak past (hard stealth DCs here instead of moderate ones through out)
most importent skills: stealth, perception, athletics, nature, history/ dungeoneering (noticing features of the city). someone suggested on another thread that you could whip out a minor silence spell with ar=cana, or pray for silence with religion, but i dislike these ideas bcause then the players might just sya "i make upo a spell/ pray for" just about anything.
every "time period" (as defined by yakk) at least one person rolls stealth (by the process i mentioned above). if that parson fails, then a shifter group appraoches to investigate. then everyone roll, and if two or more fail, a battle ensues.
i think i'm looking for 12 successes: 5 for the jungle part, 4 for the channel, and 3 for the lookouts. which by yakk's calculations should come to 4 time periods, and a total of 8 failures (4 from time). if the party reaches 10 failures, they will have more enemies on the next encounter, if they reach 6 or less, then less enemies. if they reach 12 failures, then the party gets caught by a massive group of shifters (the adventure can continue only differently)
i thought of using mostly moderate DCs (10-12 by the errata) will that generate a 25% fail rate? or should i increase/ decrease?


any thoughts would be welcomed.
Kol

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-28, 08:34 AM
as to your suggested system Oracle Hunter, i think the -5 is a bit too harsh: why then to take stealth, if the presence of the other party members will utterly negate it? another character without stealth can make the roll just the same, all that will matter will be the dex bonus.

Right, but it's unlikely that the lowest check in the party will have much of a Dex bonus - and probably an armor check penalty!

Consider the 1st Level Paladin (Heavy Shield, Plate Armor, Dex 15) and the 1st Level Halfling Rogue (Leather Armor, Dex 18). As the lowest check in the party, the Paladin would be rolling Stealth at -2 (+2 Dex -4 Armor Penalty), or at +0 if he puts the shield away. Alone, the Halfling could sneak at +11 (+5 Train +4 Dex +2 Racial), but if he helps the Paladin out, they can both Sneak at +6 (+11 -5 Helping). That can make a huge difference!

Taking Stealth is a great idea because, not only are you very sneaky, but you'll actually be able to help other people sneak along too!

lesser_minion
2009-03-29, 03:24 AM
With the situation you describe - sneaking through a jungle, the biggest skills will probably be Endurance, Perception, Nature and Stealth, with Stealth actually being one of the least common ones.

You would be using Perception to find the tracks of patrols (and avoid them), Nature to work out where the main patrols are likely to be (and to make your way through the rainforest avoiding the main trails) and Endurance because tropical rainforests are not a particularly comfortable working environment for a fully-equipped adventuring party.

Stealth wouldn't necessarily be that important - it's more likely that you will actually provoke one by saying something like "you hear something coming down the trail" than the players will actually ask to use it. The consequences of failing a stealth check in this kind of skill challenge could be pretty major as well.

I hope that helps.